---

IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD AT RANDBURG

     CASE NO.: LCC 245/2009

In the matter between:

WELVERDIEND COMMUNITY                                                                                      Applicant

Concerning:

Welverdiend 266 KP, Roodeblom 247 KP, De Paarl 2436 KP and

Langverwacht 264 KP

and

THE MINISTER OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND                                 

LAND REFORM                                                                                          First Respondent

AMAHLUBI TRADITIONAL COUNCIL                                                 Second Respondent

Heard: 12 July 2018

Judgment delivered: 23 July 2018

JUDGMENT

CANCA AJ

INTRODUCTION

[1] The applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole of the judgment and order of this Court granted on 22 May 2018.

[2] The Court dismissed a point in limine, raised by the applicant, that the second respondent did not have the necessary locus standi to participate in an action in which the applicant claimed the restitution of rights in certain land in terms of the provisions of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994 (“the Act”).

[3] The application is opposed by both respondents who contend that the Court’s order is not appealable as it is not final in effect, does not dispose of any of the issues and is not definitive of the rights of the parties. Reliance for their opposition is placed on Zweni v Minister of Law and Order 1993 (1) SA 523 (A) at 532I – 533B which sets out the attributes a judgment or order must have for it to be appealable. See also FirstRand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Makaleng [2016] ZASCA 169 para 15 and Cilliers & Others v Ellis & Another (200/2016) [2017] ZASCA 13 at para 17.

[4] The majority of the grounds of appeal set out in the notice of appeal pertain to issues in respect of which reasoned findings are set out in the judgment. It is accordingly not necessary to traverse these here.

[5] Apart from the submissions by the respondents, set out above, with which I agree, the application also fails the test for the grant of leave to appeal. This is so, because, having carefully considered all the submissions of counsel for the applicant and the respondents, I am of the view that another court would not come to a finding different from mine. This being so, there are no reasonable prospects of success on appeal and leave to appeal is accordingly refused. See the test for the grant of leave to appeal set out in section 17 of the Superior Court Act, 10 of 2013 and The Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen & 18 Others LCC 14R/2014 at para 6.

[6] Mr. Siyo, for the second respondent, submitted that the applicant should be mulcted with the costs of this application. No reasons were furnished as to why the Court should deviate from the normal principle pertaining to costs in this Court. I can find no special circumstances in this matter that warrant deviation from this Court’s view on costs.

[7] In the result, the following order is made:

1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to costs.

                                                                       

_____________________

                                                                                    MP Canca

                                                                                    Acting Judge, Land Claims Court

                                                                                   

I agree

                                                                       

______________________

                                                                                    SP Hlahane

                                                                                    Assessor

Appearances:

For the applicant                                      Advocate TM Malatji

Instructed by                                            Ledwaba Mazwai Attorneys, Pretoria.

 

For the first respondent                           Advocate L Gumbi

Instructed by                                            State Attorney, Pretoria.     

 

For the second respondent                     Advocate L Siyo

Instructed by                                           Makaula Zilwa Inc., Sandton.

---