Radebe v Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform and others

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Meer AJP and Muvangua AJ
• Judgment Date: 21 November 2022
• Citation: 2023 JDR 1823 (LCC)
• Hearing Date: 21 November 2022
• Docket Number: LCC73/2020

Meer AJP:

[1]

The Second Defendant applies for its costs arising from its opposition to a land claim lodged by the Plaintiff in respect of the farm Waag Alles, in KZN, owned by it. Costs are sought against the First Defendant and Participating party.

[2]

In its opposition to the claim the Second Defendant challenged the feasibility of restoring the land claimed. The claim was ultimately settled on the basis that the claimant elected to claim monetary compensation and not physical restoration. The Second Defendant thus achieved substantial success.

[3]

In Trustees for the Time being of the Biowatch Trust v the Registrar Genetic Resources and Others 2009 (6) SA 232CC at paragraph 24 it was said:

". . . particularly powerful reasons must exist for a court not to award costs against the state in favour of a private litigant who achieves substantial success in proceedings brought against it"

[4]

This was echoed by this Court in a number of cases. In Elambini Community v Minister of Rural Development and Others LCC88/2012, 30 May 2018 this court said at paragraph 157:

"This Court has, in a number of cases, granted costs against the State and in favour of private litigants who have achieved substantial success in proceedings against the State. It has done so on the basis that land claims litigation, deriving as it does from Section 25 (3) of the Constitution, is in the genre of constitutional litigation. See Makhukhuza Community Claimants (LCC 04/2009) [2010] ZALCC 26 (18 November 2010) at paragraph 30; Quinella Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others v Minister of Rural Development and Others 2010 (4) SA 308 (LCC) at paragraph 35 and 36; Greater Tenbosch Land Claims Committee and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others (74/06) [2010] ZALCC 25 (15

2023 JDR 1823 p3

Meer AJP

September 2010). Ms Naidoo, for the First Defendant, in opposing the costs order sought, argued that the present matter is distinguishable from that in inter alia Quinella supra, in that in those judgments the Commission's conduct was subject to justifiable criticism. The First Defendant, she submitted, had not conducted herself in any manner warranting an order of costs against her. In support of her argument she referred me to the judgment in Competition Commission of South Africa v Pioneer Hi–Bred International Inc and Others 2014 (2) SA 480 (CC). In that case the Court set aside a costs order against the Competition Commission and in so doing...