About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAGPPHC 213
|
|
Van Staden N.O and Others v Regional Land Claims Commisioner Limpopo Province and Others (40124/08) [2010] ZAGPPHC 213 (3 December 2010)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH
GAUTENG HIGH COURT,
PRETORI
A)
CASE
NO: 40124/08
DATE:03/12/2010
In
the matter between:
PETRUS
JACOBUS VAN STADEN
N.
O
...............................................
1
ST
APPLICANT
MATHOLE
SEROFO MOTSHEKGA N.O
…..........................................
2
nd
APPLICANT
JAQUELINE
FOURIE
N.O
.......................................................................
3
rd
APPLICANT
And
THE
REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMIVIISIONER
LIMPOPO
PROVINCE
..........................................................................
1
st
RESPONDENT
MINISTER
OF AGRICULTURE AND LAND
AFFAIRS
...........................................................................................
…..
2
ND
RESPONDENT
THE
CHIEF LAND CLAIMS COMMISIONER
...................................
3
rd
RESPONDENT
THE
COMMISIONER ON RESTITUTION OF
LAND
RIGHTS
......................................................................................
4
TH
RESPODENT
JUDGMENT
MSIMEKI,
J
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The applicants had brought an application seeking the following
relief against the respondents:
"1
.
The respondents be and is (sic) hereby ordered to provide to the
Applicants within 7 days after service upon the respondents of
this
order, the further particulars sought by the Applicants in terms of
section 10 (7) of the Expropriation Act. 63 of 1975. as
contained in
the Applicants' letter to the first Respondent, dated 14 February
2008. and annexed as annexure "MVS6
1
"
to the founding affidavit:
2.
That the respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the other
to be absolved, be ordered to pay the costs of this application;
3.
Further and/or alternative relief."
BRIEF
FACTS
[2]
The remaining extent of the farm Callias 226, Registration
Division KT, Limpopo Province, in extent 2355, 8802 hectares,
and
held by Rivermouth under title deed number T83452/1998 ("the
farm") had been expropriated by the state which had
offered
R13.361.000.00 as compensation therefor. The applicants then in terms
of s10 (7) of the Expropriation Act number 63 of
1975 ("the
Act") asked for further particulars. The further particulars
were not furnished until the applicants launched
an application to
compel the respondents to furnish them with the further particulars.
The applicants did not persist in seeking
the substantial relief once
the required information was furnished. Only the question of costs
remained to be determined as the
respondents had not tendered the
costs of the application. The respondents only tendered the costs
when the matter was removed
from the roll on 18 May 2009. The
applicants contended that the respondents ought to have tendered the
costs which they are entitled
to while it is the respondent's
contention that the applicants are not entitled to any costs. The
disagreement resulted in this
application which concerns itself with
the issue of costs only.
[3]
Mr Van Der Merwe appeared for the applicants while Mr Moosa
appeared for the respondents.
[4]
The applicants had based their application on s10 (7) of the Act
which reads
"The
Minister may from time to time ask for reasonable particulars
regarding the owner's claim for compensation, and the owner
may from
time to time ask for reasonable particulars regarding the Minister's
offer of compensation, and particulars so asked for
shall be
furnished within a reasonable time." (emphasis added)
It
is clear from the reading of the section that the Minister has
authority, from time to time, to ask for reasonable particulars
regarding the owner's claim for compensation. Similarly, the owner
from time to time, has, the same authority to ask for reasonable
particulars regarding the Minister's offer of compensation. The
required information has to be furnished within a reasonable time.
[5]
As alluded to above, it has been the respondents' case that the
applicants are not entitled to the costs. S10 (7), according
to them,
does not cover the information such as the applicants called for.
[6|
COMMON CAUSE FACTS
These
are that:
1.
The State expropriated the property.
2.
It offered R13.361.000.00 for having expropriated the property.
3.
The applicants then called for further particulars.
4.
Under cover of the respondent's attorney's letter dated 22 October
2008 a valuation report of J D van Heerden was forwarded to
the
applicants' attorneys. The letter and the report are referred to in
paragraph 4 of the respondent's answering affidavit.
5.
The letter of 22 October 2009 confirms in paragraph 1 that the
applicants are entitled to know how the amount offered as
compensation
for the expropriation is made up.
6.
The report of J D van Heerden dated 13 March 2006 satisfied the
applicants who, upon receipt thereof, decided not to pursue the
substantial relief that they had sought in their application.
[7]
It is clear that the applicants received the information that they
had needed after they launched their application to compel
the
furnishing thereof. There can, therefore, be no doubt that they are
entitled to the costs. There can further be no doubt that
the
applicants were entitled to the information which had something to do
with the amount offered. Surely this is covered by
s10
(7) of the Act. It was also not clear as to whom the offer was
addressed to. This is borne out by correspondence between the
parties
1
legal representatives especially paragraph 1 of the letter from the
applicants' attorneys dated 20 February 2009. This clearly
shows that
confirmation of the one to whom the offer was directed was needed so
that the matter could be laid to rest. Mr van Der
Merwe submitted
that the issue of the further particulars and the clarity relating to
the one the offer was addressed to caused
the applicants to pursue
the application. This much is clear from the letter addressed to the
respondents' attorneys by the applicants'
attorneys.
[8
]
Mr
Moosa's submission that Mr J D van Heerden's report confirms the
amount offered and that the applicants should, therefore, have
known
how the amount offered was arrived at has no basis. The applicants,
in the first place, would never have known how the amount
was arrived
at before they had sight of the report. Secondly, the amount offered
was simply offered without showing how it had
been arrived at. The
request for the further particulars, in my view, is covered by
annexure MVS 6 which indeed deals with and
relates to the offer of
the Minister. It has, in my view, by now been sufficiently
demonstrated that the applicants are indeed
entitled to the costs of
the application. The application, therefore, stands to succeed.
[9]
Mr Van Der Merwe submitted that the costs payable should be on the
scale as between attorney and client as, according to
him, the
respondents' conduct warrants that. I do not agree.
M
W MSIMEKI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH
COU
RT
[10]
In the result the order I make is as follows:
-
The respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying the others
to be absolved, are ordered to pay the costs of the application.
M.
W. MSIMEKI
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT