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.