|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2020 |
|
|
|
7 December 2020 |
|
An owner may not unilaterally curtail occupiers' ESTA grazing rights without a court order, even if CARA concerns arise.
ESTA — eviction defined to include deprivation of use of land linked to residence — owners/persons in charge must obtain court process to curtail occupiers' grazing rights; CARA compliance does not permit unilateral eviction; overgrazing reports may justify removal only with judicial oversight.
|
2 December 2020 |
| November 2020 |
|
|
A defective, non‑particularised notice of appeal fails Rule 69 and may be struck from the roll with costs.
Civil procedure – appeals – Rule 69 requirements – notice must specify findings appealed against and court to which leave is sought; defective notice recording only intent to appeal is incompetent. Jurisdiction – Land Claims Court may not grant leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court; leave to Constitutional Court is a matter for that Court; Land Claims Court may grant leave to SCA under Restitution Act. Procedural fairness – late-raised constitutional issues and new grounds introduced after hearing cannot be entertained. Relief – defective appeal materials and procedural delay justify striking matter from the roll and awarding costs.
|
24 November 2020 |
|
Impoundment under ESTA s7(1) unlawful where dispute exists and statutory requirements were not complied with.
Property law / ESTA s7(1) – impoundment of animals – statutory notice requirements and compliance with applicable impoundment law. Civil contempt and enforcement of court orders – private self‑help coercion impermissible; court process required. Interpretation of interim orders and protection of occupiers' property rights under section 25 of the Constitution.
|
12 November 2020 |
|
Attorney ordered to pay costs de bonis propriis for prosecuting land claim by incorrect procedure.
Procedure — Restitution of Land Rights Act & Land Claims Court Rule 38: referral to Court required; incorrect use of notice of action. Costs de bonis propriis — personal costs against attorney for materially deviating from professional standards (dilatory, negligent or reckless conduct). Participating Party — delay and late filings criticised but not liable for costs of special plea.
|
11 November 2020 |
|
Whether the Land Claims Court may exercise jurisdiction over a spoliation and declaratory dispute not arising from restitution — court declined.
Land Claims Court – jurisdiction under Restitution of Land Rights Act – scope of section 22(1)(cA) and section 22(2)(c) – incidental issues – mandament van spolie and interlocutory relief – whether specialist court may assert jurisdiction over disputes not arising from restitution acquisition – discretion and interests of justice – striking from roll.
|
10 November 2020 |
|
Applicant failed to show a gazetted claim or duress, so interim stay of settlement was set aside and costs awarded against applicants.
Land restitution – interdicted claims post‑1 July 2014 – effect of LAMOSA orders on processing and gazetting claims under s11(1) – locus standi of interdicted claimant to seek status‑quo protection – allegations of duress in settlement agreements – requirement for proof that claim would have been gazetted to invoke s11(7) protection – refusal to remit to oral evidence – costs following result.
|
6 November 2020 |
| October 2020 |
|
|
Reported
Claim forms may be imprecise; the RLCC must investigate, identify cadastral properties for Gazette notices, and amend notices accordingly.
Restitution Act (ss 10, 11, 12, 16) — sufficiency of claim-form descriptions; duty of RLCC to assist and investigate; section 11 Gazette amendment and s11A procedure; rectification/amendment of Gazette to reflect claimant’s intended land; validity of research reports and effect of prior consent order; procedural direction to convene pre-trial conference.
|
19 October 2020 |
|
A respondent’s disavowal of s34 reliance does not preclude pursuing other pleaded defences after separated restorability hearing.
Restitution of Land Rights Act – separation of issues – restorability (feasibility) – pleadings define lis – s34 disavowal does not extinguish other pleaded defences – costs (attorney and client) for unmeritorious procedural challenge.
|
9 October 2020 |
|
An unexplained, lengthy delay by an official seeking joinder and review of personal cost orders justified refusal of condonation and costs.
Civil procedure – condonation for late application – inadequacy of explanation and prejudice to respondents;* Civil procedure – joinder of state official in personal capacity – joinder is preferred but not obligatory before imposing personal costs;* Constitutional obligations – ministers must act expeditiously;* Abuse of process – refusal to join when invited and then belated application;* Costs – unsuccessful condonation application leads to costs, including two counsel.
|
5 October 2020 |
|
Respondent found in contempt for allocating claimed land without complying with the Restitution Act; sales set aside and fined.
Contempt of court; consent order; Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 s 11(7)(aA); non-compliance with court order; wilfulness/mala fides; setting aside sales/allocations of claimed land; disclosure of purchasers; appropriate sanction (fine).
|
2 October 2020 |
| September 2020 |
|
|
Applicant granted urgent interdict halting development on claimed land pending review for lack of claimant consultation under s11(7)(aA).
Restitution of Land Rights Act s11(7)(aA) – notice requirement before development on claimed land; claimant consultation required in practice. Administrative procedure – Regional Land Claims Commission – relevance of claimant views upon receipt of development notice. Interim interdict – urgency, locus standi, prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience. Joinder – Regional Land Claims Commission joined as interested party.
|
2 September 2020 |
| August 2020 |
|
|
|
31 August 2020 |
|
Leave to appeal refused: consent order did not award R502,017,807; parol evidence rule and Florence valuation principles govern equitable redress.
Land Claims Court — leave to appeal — reasonable prospects of success; Consent order interpretation — reservation of equitable redress versus express award; Parol evidence rule and Endumeni — application in interpreting consent orders; Restitution of Land Rights Act s30(1) — does not displace substantive interpretive rules; Valuation for equitable relief — historical valuation (Florence) not current market value; Costs — prohibition on recovering fees from State under legal aid justified for ill-advised litigation.
|
17 August 2020 |
|
An owner may evict post-1997 occupiers under ESTA if termination is procedurally and substantively just and equitable; lien claims require adequate proof.
ESTA — definition and timing of "occupier"; application of 4 February 1997 cutoff; section 8 — procedural and substantive fairness of termination of residence; section 11 — just and equitable eviction of post-1997 occupiers; common-law lien and claims for improvements; section 13 demolition/salvage; impact of insolvency and auction-transfers; Covid-19 considerations affecting execution dates.
|
12 August 2020 |
|
Eviction under ESTA refused because termination was procedurally unfair and not just and equitable.
Land law – ESTA eviction; termination of right of residence – s 8 just and equitable requirement; s 3(4) and s 3(5) consent presumptions; Labour Tenants Act overlap; PIE inapplicability to ESTA occupiers; availability of alternative accommodation under s 10; procedural fairness and opportunity to make representations; motion proceedings v oral evidence in complex factual disputes.
|
5 August 2020 |
| July 2020 |
|
|
The respondent, a long-term occupier, cannot be evicted by an s8(5) notice absent proof of a s10(1)(c) fundamental breach.
Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) – s8(4) protected long-term occupier v s8(5) spouse/dependant; ESTA – s10(1)(c) fundamental breach test: whether relationship irreparably destroyed; Notice requirements and Regulation 5/Form D – substantial conformity and relevance where incorrect statutory basis used; Precedent: Klaase v Van der Merwe applied to assess long-term occupier status; Eviction – just and equitable assessment under ESTA.
|
9 July 2020 |
|
Pre-trial undertakings are binding; court ordered claimant CPA financials and separated Telkom’s Grovedale restorability issues.
• Civil procedure – pre-trial minutes and undertakings – binding nature and enforceability; court’s power under s 31 and rule 30 to issue directions and compel document production.
• Restitution – funding of claimants – obligation to produce CPA audited/provisional financial statements and bank records for assessment of state-funded legal assistance.
• Restitution – referral report challenges – requirement for claimant witness statements and expert reports to identify specific Delius paragraphs and cadastral units.
• Restitution – case management – separation of issues; Telkom’s Grovedale property to be separately adjudicated and s 34 issues reserved.
• Procedural management – witness statement content; timelines; COVID-19 adjusted conferencing.
|
3 July 2020 |
| June 2020 |
|
|
|
30 June 2020 |
|
Whether eviction under ESTA was just and equitable and whether removal of materials constituted an unremediable fundamental breach.
Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) — section 8(1) just and equitable requirement for eviction — section 10(1)(c) fundamental breach and practicality of remedy — validity of agreements limiting occupier rights (s25 ESTA) — review for failure to make essential findings — leave to appeal under s17 Superior Courts Act where higher court guidance desirable.
|
30 June 2020 |
|
|
23 June 2020 |
|
|
23 June 2020 |
|
|
15 June 2020 |
| May 2020 |
|
|
|
27 May 2020 |
|
|
26 May 2020 |
|
|
25 May 2020 |
| March 2020 |
|
|
|
23 March 2020 |
|
Reported
Whether section 17(4) ESTA empowers magistrates to invoke civil contempt; court held it does not.
Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) s17(4) – choice of court and applicable rules of procedure – does not confer remedial powers.* Civil contempt – remedies (criminal and civil) sourced in higher courts' inherent jurisdiction and common law, not mere rules of procedure.* Magistrates' courts – creatures of statute; their ESTA powers are those in s19 (eviction, reinstatement, criminal ESTA proceedings, interdicts, declaratory orders).* Remedies where ESTA order disobeyed – s106 Magistrates' Courts Act (criminal contempt) or process‑in‑aid in Land Claims Court/High Court.* Costs in social‑welfare legislation matters – ordinarily no costs; each party ordered to pay own costs here.
|
20 March 2020 |
|
|
3 March 2020 |
| February 2020 |
|
|
|
27 February 2020 |
|
Court rescinded an ex parte interim interdict, granted condonation, and substituted a narrower interdiction pending review.
Civil procedure – rescission of ex parte rule nisi – condonation for late rescission application; Procedural fairness – adequacy of notice and competence of lay respondents; Restitution of Land Rights Act – effect of lapsed lease agreements on occupiers’ rights; Interim relief – scope and correctness of interdicts against communal association members; Error in pleadings/orders – trust does not have "members".
|
15 February 2020 |