---

IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT Of SOUTH

AFICA HELD AT RANDBURG

CASE NO: LCC 196/2013

Before: The Honourable AJP Meer

Heard on: 16 February 2016

Delivered on: 16 February 2016

In the matter between:

NORMANDIEN FARMS (PTY) LTD                                                                       Applicant

and        

MANDLA NKOSI JOSEPH MATHIMBANE                                             First Respondent

BONGINKOSI DAVID MATHIMBANE                                                 Second Respondent

PHUMELELO FLORENCE MATHIMBANE                                            Third Respondent

MLAMULI OBED MATHIMBANE                                                         Fourth Respondent

SIPHO MATHIMBANE                                                                              Fifth Respondent

MARIAM JELE                                                                                        Sixth Respondent

BERNARD JELE                                                                                Seventh Respondent

MARTHA JELE                                                                                     Eighth Respondent

ALBERT JELE                                                                                        Ninth Respondent

APOSTOL JELE                                                                                    Tenth  Respondent

SWEET BETTER JELE                                                                     Eleventh Respondent

JOHANNES JELE                                                                                Twelfth Respondent

THE MINISTER OF THE NATIONAL

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

FORESTRY AND FISHERIES                                                        Thirteenth Respondent

THE MINISTER OF RURAL

DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM                                        Fourteenth Respondent

THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS

COMMISSIONER,  KWAZULU-NATAL                                            Fifteenth Respondent

JUDGEMENT

[1] Two applications for leave to appeal against my judgement of 05 November 2015 have been filed. The first application ("first application") by the parties who were the First to Twelfth Respondents in the main application, appeals to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole  of my judgement and order. The second application ("second application''), brought by the Fourteenth Respondent in the main application, appeals against paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the order in my judgement of 5 November 2015.

[2] The grounds of appeal in both applications, in the main traverse issues in respect of which reasoned findings are made in the judgement.  It will thus serve little purpose to repeat these here, save for the following comments: -

[3] The first application in essence takes issue, inter-alia, with my findings on the counter-claim, the application to strike out my interpretation of the legislation being the various Acts dealt with in the judgement, my findings on costs and locus standi.

[4] Mr Shakoane in addition submitted that there was a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, namely that this matter involves two conflicting judgements and orders of this court. This is a reference to my judgement of 5 November 2014 and the order of Sardiwalla AJ of 02 April 2014, (referred to in my judgment), which made an agreement by the parties before him an order of Court. His order conferred labour tenancy status on the Plaintiffs in the matter before him and ordered certain conduct flowing therefrom.   My judgement and order dealt with a separate matter as is evident from the pleadings and record. The two orders cannot therefore be said to conflict in respect of the same  matter, albeit that the two orders accepted the labour tenancy status of the First to Twelfth Plaintiffs/ Respondents and both orders pertain to them.

[5] The second application  for  leave  to  appeal  by  the  fourteenth Respondent similarly takes issue with my interpretation  of  the  Land  Reform Labour Tenants Act 3 of 1996, the Conservation of Agricultural Resources  Act  43  of  1983("CARA")  and  the  Land  Reform  Provision  of

land and Assistance Act 126 of 1993, as well as my findings on costs.

[6] As aforementioned my reasoned findings on ail aspects with which issue is taken in both applications for leave to appeal, appear clearly in my judgement in response to the arguments presented at the hearing and mirrored in both applications for leave to appeal. They are, not of course repeated here.

[7] I have carefully considered the submissions by Mr Shakoane and  Ms Norman and have reflected  dispassionately  upon  my  decision  after hearing their arguments. I am of the view that another Court  would  not  come to a decision different to mine in respect  of  the  issues  raised  by  them. There are accordingly, in my view no reasonable  prospects  of  success on appeal. This  being  so  both  applications  for  leave  to  appeal stand to be dismissed.  In  keeping with the practice  of  this  Court,  I  make no order as to  costs.

I order as follows:

The applications for leave to appeal are dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

___________________________

Meer Y S

Acting Judge President of the Land Claims Court

 

Appearances:

Counsel for  the Applicant:

Adv G Roberts SC

Adv C Hattingh

 

Attorneys for the Applicant:

Peter Vinnicombe & Associates, Durban.

Counsel for  the 1^st to  12^th Respondent:

Adv G Shakoane SC Adv M Kgariya

Attorneys for the 1^st  to 12^th Respondent:

MC Ntshalintshali & Associates, Durban.

 

Counsel for the 1^st to 12^th Respondent:

Adv T Norman SC Adv Z P Mhlongo

Attorneys for the 13^th Respondent:

State Attorney, Durban

---