|
Citation
|
Judgment date
|
| December 2021 |
|
|
Appeal upheld: material disputes of fact required oral evidence and damages awards were unsupported.
Land‑tenure/eviction — Extension of Security of Tenure Act context — final relief on affidavit — material disputes of fact — Wightman/Plascon‑Evans test — duty to call oral evidence — inadmissible/new material in replying affidavit — unsustained damages awards without valuation/receipts.
|
9 December 2021 |
|
Court issued a rule nisi to interdict transfer and eviction pending resolution of a 2014 land claim and disclosure of award information.
Restitution of Land Rights Act – interim interdicts under section 6(3) – protection pending finalisation of lodged claims. Effect of LAMOSA decisions on processing and adjudication of claims lodged between 1 July 2014 and 28 July 2016 – limited protective relief available to new claimants. Locus standi of new claimants to seek procedural or preservative relief. Administrative law – access to information and fair administrative action by land claims authorities.
|
1 December 2021 |
| November 2021 |
|
|
Leave to appeal a costs order refused; judge’s discretion to award costs for applicants’ conduct upheld.
Costs — judicial discretion to award costs for misconduct — persistent unproven allegations against presiding judge — locus standi to oppose recusal — leave to appeal; no reasonable prospects of success.
|
22 November 2021 |
|
The court granted occupiers’ condonation and leave to cross-appeal due to funding delay and strong res judicata prospects.
Land Claims Court – condonation for late application to cross-appeal – Melane factors – funding delays; Leave to cross-appeal – res judicata vs lis alibi pendens – ‘same persons’ requirement not strictly literal; Abuse of process/forum shopping – relevance to prospects of success; Costs on appeal.
|
11 November 2021 |
| October 2021 |
|
|
Applicant's review was dismissed as premature because no final administrative decision had been taken and the land claim remains under investigation.
Restitution of Land Rights Act – review – competence and prematurity of review applications where no final administrative decision has been taken; publication and amendment of Gazette notices; challenge to prior State land purchases/transfers under PLA/LRAD; relief for deregistration and transfer contingent on final claim determination.
|
6 October 2021 |
|
An interdicted claimant may obtain an interim interdict to protect its interest in claimed land pending finalisation of the claim.
Restitution law – interim interdicts – locus standi of interdicted claimants; effect of LAMOSA judgments on protective relief; section 6(3) Restitution Act requirements; preservation of status quo pending finalisation of land claims; enforcement by sheriff and police.
|
1 October 2021 |
| September 2021 |
|
|
Court accepts uncontested allegations of misprocessing of a land claim, orders subpoenas and documentary production under s28F to investigate validity of a s42D agreement.
Restitution of Land Rights Act — validity of s42D agreements — claimant status and prerequisites for implementation; Communal Property Association constitutionality and membership; obligation of Commission and RLCC to act with accountability and transparency under s195 of the Constitution; court’s power to subpoena and compel production under s28F; consequences of non-compliance with court orders and potential referral to prosecuting authorities.
|
30 September 2021 |
|
A village established under a utility’s statutory powers is a township excluded from ESTA, so eviction disputes fall under PIE.
Property law – Determination whether land developed by a public utility constitutes a ‘township’ for ESTA s2(1) purposes – Electricity Act s4 enables establishment/recognition of utility villages as townships. Jurisdiction – Land Claims Court lacks jurisdiction where matter is governed by PIE rather than ESTA. Eviction law – Distinction between remedies under ESTA and PIE; disputes of fact on alleged spoliation require adjudication in competent forum. Urgency – Criteria for spoliation-based urgent relief and when offers of alternate accommodation dissipate urgency.
|
17 September 2021 |
|
An occupier’s ESTA right to human dignity can include electricity installation; owner’s consent cannot unreasonably prevent it.
ESTA s5(a) – right to human dignity – improvements reasonably necessary to render dwelling habitable – electricity as a necessary improvement. Owner's consent – not a prerequisite for occupier to make necessary habitability improvements; meaningful engagement required. Constitutional and municipal law context – electricity as an implicit component of adequate housing/municipal services. Relief – order compelling consent to connection and interlocutory interdiction; costs awarded for exceptional intransigence.
|
7 September 2021 |
| August 2021 |
|
|
Leave to appeal refused where applicant repeated prior arguments, conceded ESTA authority, and caused wasted costs by late filings.
Civil procedure – leave to appeal – section 17(1)(a)(i) and (ii) Superior Courts Act – reasonable prospects of success and compelling reasons required. ESTA – compliance with ss8 and 9(2); s8(1)(e) and binding authority of Snydos. Appealability – challenge to factual findings insufficient where no new grounds advanced. Costs – wasted costs awarded for non-compliance with practice directive (late heads of argument).
|
23 August 2021 |
|
Whether an occupier may erect a brick dwelling within a demarcated portion without owner’s consent, and the need for meaningful engagement.
Land tenure – ESTA – occupier’s rights to improve dwelling within demarcated portion – whether brick rebuilding constitutes an improvement/improved rebuild under Daniels v Scribante – consent v meaningful engagement – encroachment defined.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
Condonation refused and leave to appeal struck from the roll; no prima facie right to an interim interdict.
Land restitution — application for leave to appeal — condonation for late filing — applicant's delay and explanations inadequate; no prospects of success. Interim interdict — requirements: prima facie right and irreparable harm — not established. Publication in Government Gazette determines properties subject to claim; sale of claimed land not automatically void — s11(7) Restitution Act; mala fides required to set transaction aside. Costs — special circumstances justified departure from usual rule.
|
4 August 2021 |
|
Condonation refused and leave to appeal struck off; applicant failed to prove prima facie right or justify late filing.
Civil procedure — condonation for late filing — explanation for delay — inadequacy of blaming prior attorney and COVID-19 — United Plant Hire factors. Interim interdict — requirements (prima facie right; apprehension of irreparable harm) — Setlogelo applied — applicant failed to show entitlement. Restitution of Land Rights Act s11(7) — publication of land claim in Government Gazette does not determine merit; sale/development not per se void; notice to RLCC and court discretion where mala fides. Evidence — Government Gazette authoritative for identifying properties subject to claim; absence from Gazette undermines applicant's assertion.
|
4 August 2021 |
| July 2021 |
|
|
Applicant’s urgent interdict to stop land clearing failed for lack of s 6(3) notice, evidence of defeat of restitution objectives, and balance of convenience.
Restitution Act (s 6(3), s 11(2) & s 11(7)) – interim interdicts – requirements for relief – interested party, reasonable belief development will defeat Act’s objects, notice and judicial discretion (s 33). Urgency – inherent urgency where clearing is in progress but urgency alone insufficient. Locus and authority of CPA to act for claimant community. Balance of convenience and irreparable harm – equitable redress alternatives and public interest in development. Costs – costs order appropriate where parties are commercially active.
|
30 July 2021 |
|
|
28 July 2021 |
| May 2021 |
|
|
Reported
Court held that inspection minutes must record and attribute parties’ statements, which may amount to judicial admissions, and set a process to finalise them.
Inspection in loco — recording and transcription of statements — curial statements and potential judicial admissions — identification of party contentions and sources — procedure to resolve transcription disputes and finalise minute.
|
19 May 2021 |
|
s 18(3) relief requires a valid notice of appeal; a pending condonation does not suspend the judgment, so enforcement remains possible.
Superior Courts Act s 18 — suspension of decisions pending appeal — prerequisite that a valid notice of appeal be lodged in terms of the rules — pending condonation for late noting does not suspend judgment — where notice of appeal lapsed, no order under s 18(3) available; judgment remains enforceable — urgency and assessment of irreparable harm where order is time-limited (obiter).
|
17 May 2021 |
|
State ordered to pay substantial costs for failing to comply with court directives and Practice Direction 8(4).
Costs — Restitution claims — Failure by State/State Attorney to comply with court directives and Practice Direction 8(4) — entitlement to attorney-and-client costs — limits on counsel fees — systemic delays in finalising old claims and reporting obligations under LAMOSA.
|
12 May 2021 |
| April 2021 |
|
|
Eviction under ESTA requires clear pleaded termination and direct opportunity to make representations for all occupiers.
Land tenure – Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) – Eviction applications – Requirement that right of residence be terminated in terms of s8 and that occupiers be afforded effective opportunity to make representations – Adult non-dependent children and spouses as occupiers in their own right – Compliance with s9(2)(d) notice requirements – Distinct requirements of ss10 and 11 – Supplementary affidavit cannot cure foundational omissions in founding affidavit.
|
13 April 2021 |
|
Challenge to an AGM, its elections and terminations dismissed; applicant lacked authority and costs awarded on attorney-and-client scale.
Communal Property Association — validity of AGM and committee elections — notice and quorum compliance — res judicata and prior judgments — authority to represent applicants — attorney-and-client costs for mala fides.
|
13 April 2021 |
| March 2021 |
|
|
Eviction, demolition and impoundment without a court order violate ESTA and occupier's family-life rights.
Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) – unlawful eviction – deprivation of use of land – requirement of court order for eviction and demolition. ESTA s6(2)(d) – occupier’s right to family life – includes family members (including adult children) living with occupier – just and equitable balancing with owner’s rights. Impoundment of livestock – removal and impoundment without court order unlawful where stock belong to occupier or graze in allocated camp; section 7 not applicable in circumstances. Remedies – declaratory relief, restoration of ploughing fields and grazing camps, rebuilding demolished house, return of cattle, interdict against harassment, right to return to homestead. Evidence – credibility assessments, probative value of attorney letters and eyewitness testimony.
|
25 March 2021 |
|
Whether occupiers’ grazing rights may be reduced without a court order and leave to appeal that decision.
Land law – Occupiers' grazing rights – Whether reduction of grazing without court order is lawful – Leave to appeal and condonation – Distinction from Mthethwa v Bester – Appealability of costs.
|
17 March 2021 |
| February 2021 |
|
|
Eviction under s10(1)(c) requires specific, individualised proof of fundamental breach; blanket allegations insufficient.
Land Claims/ESTA — eviction under s10(1)(c) — requirement of individualised proof of fundamental breach; res judicata — identity of parties; commissioning of affidavits — curable procedural defects; justice and equity in mass eviction proceedings.
|
18 February 2021 |
|
Court granted condonation, found CPA had a prima facie defence, rescinded wider ex parte order and issued a narrower interim interdiction.
Rescission and condonation — late rescission application — reasonable explanation and bona fides where lay applicants relied on Department officials; Interim/inter partes relief — ex parte rule nisi rescinded and replaced by narrower interim interdiction against CPA members; Land restitution — lessees’ leases lapsed; prima facie defence to review of award of farms.
|
15 February 2021 |