CCT42/07

[2008] ZACC 5

2008 (4) SA 488 (CC)

2008 (4) BCLR 675 (CC)

Mpati AJ

8 May 2008

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3385

The case was first heard in the Land Claims Court: Mphela and Others v Engelbrecht and Others [2005] 2 All SA 135 (LCC) and Mphela and Others v Engelbrecht and Others LCC 66/01, 18 July 2005, unreported. An appeal to the SCA is reported as Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others v Mphela and Others 2007 (5) SA 596 (SCA). This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of the SCA.

This case concerns the restitution of land due to past discriminatory laws and practices. The applicants? forefathers were forcibly removed from their farm and relocated to a new farm. Their original farm was subsequently subdivided into four portions, three of which were owned by the respondents. The SCA confirmed the order of the LCC in respect of the partial restoration of three of the four portions and upheld the respondents? appeal in respect of the remaining portion. It ordered that the matter be remitted to the LCC, to determine whether the applicants, in view of their continued ownership of the new farm, had to contribute to the acquisition by the State of the properties comprising the original farm. The applicants sought leave to appeal in this Court against the SCA?s order. The Court held that the applicants? case on partial restoration did not warrant this Court?s interference with the SCA?s exercise of discretion. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused. However on the point of the remittal order, he held that the remittal process would unnecessarily prolong the finalisation of the matter and that there were factors to which the SCA did not properly direct itself, thus that part of the remittal order was accordingly set aside. Majority: Mpati Aj (unanimous)