Tshakuma Community Trust and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Province of Limpopo and Others (LCC194/2013) [2023] ZALCC 21 (11 July 2023)

Key Facts

Issues

• If the decision is found to be reviewable, whether the decision was valid, rational and in accordance with the prescripts and the law.
• Whether the decision by the RLCC to accept and approve the recommendation of Miss Ratitshanga is reviewable.
• Whether the settlement agreement to merge the Dombo Community claim with the Tshakuma Community and other competing claimants is still valid and enforceable.

Holdings

• The publication of the Dombo Community Claim in Notice No 899 of 2012, Government Gazette No 35831, was also reviewed and set aside by the court due to the same irregularities in the RLCC's process.
• The court reviewed and set aside the RLCC's decision to accept and approve the Dombo Community Claim, finding it irregular as the claim had already been merged and settled with the Tshakuma Community Trust, and there was no further dispute to investigate.
• The court made no order regarding costs in this case, as there were no special circumstances warranting an award of costs.

Remedies

• The decision of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner to accept and approve the recommendation of Miss Ratitshanga, contained in her report dated 14 September 2012, is reviewed and set aside.
• There is no order as to costs in this matter.
• The decision to cause publication of the Dombo Community Claim in Notice No 899 of 2012, contained in Government Gazette No 35831 of 2 November 2012, is reviewed and set aside.

Legal Principles

• The court conducted a judicial review of the RLCC's decision to accept and publish the Dombo Community Claim. It found the decision irrational and procedurally unfair under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA). The RLCC's reversal of its prior approval of the Tshakuma Community Claim was deemed inconsistent and lacking valid justification, violating the requirement for administrative action to be rational and procedurally fair.
• The court applied the principle of res judicata to determine that the settlement agreement between the Dombo Community and Tshakuma Community Trust concluded the land dispute. Once a settlement is reached, it brings finality to the lis between parties, making the matter res judicata. The court emphasized that the RLCC could not revive a claim already settled by agreement, as it would contradict the legal effect of the settlement.

Precedent Name

• Eke v Parsons
• Bato Star Fishing v Minister of Environmental Affairs
• Hurenco Boedery (Pty) Ltd v Regional Land Claims Commission Northern Cape and Another
• PG Group Ltd and Others v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another

Cited Statute

• Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996
• Restitution of Land Rights Act, Act No 22 of 1994
• Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA), Act 3 of 2000

Judge Name

Passage Text

• [10] The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to administrative action that is valid, reasonable and procedurally fair... The court will review an administrative action if the administrator... took irrelevant considerations into account...
• [19] The decision of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner... to accept and approve the recommendation of Miss Ratitshanga... is reviewed and set aside.
• [12] The RLCC committed a gross irregularity by investigating a claim which did not exist anymore. The Dombo Community land claim had been merged with other claims and it came under the umbrella of the Tshakuma Community Trust... The dispute had been settled by agreement between the parties.