• Law Reports
  • Lisbon Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mhlongo …

Lisbon Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mhlongo and Others (Leave to Appeal) (1904/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 64 (28 July 2025)

60 Reportability
Trusts and Estates
View PDF SAFLII Source
Share WhatsApp LinkedIn X Email

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against judgment declaring trust resolution and property transfer invalid — Applicants contending errors in law and fact regarding trust law and the Alienation of Land Act — Court finding compelling reasons for appeal due to public importance and potential impact on community rights — Leave to appeal granted.

Comprehensive Summary

Case Note


Lisbon Developments (Pty) Ltd and Others v Themba Tibane and Others

Case No: 1904/2023

Date: 28 July 2025


Reportability


This case is reportable due to its implications for trust law and land reform in South Africa. The judgment addresses significant issues regarding the validity of trust resolutions and the management of land owned by trusts for community benefit. The court's decision to grant leave to appeal highlights the potential for broader legal principles to be established, which may affect similar cases across different jurisdictions.


Cases Cited



  • Nhlangwini Trust v Registrar of Deeds [2021] ZALC 12

  • Minister of Land Affairs v Tswelopele Non-Profit Organisation [2005] 2 All SA 1 (SCA)

  • Mokgoro v Minister of Land Affairs [2002] 1 All SA 1 (SCA)


Legislation Cited



  • Deeds Registry Act 47 of 1937

  • Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981

  • Superior Court Act 10 of 2013


Rules of Court Cited



  • Uniform Rules of Court


HEADNOTE


Summary


The High Court of South Africa, Mpumalanga Division, ruled on an application for leave to appeal concerning the validity of a trust resolution and the subsequent transfer of land from the Nhlangwini Trust. The court found that the initial judgment declaring the trust's actions unlawful raised significant legal questions warranting further examination by a higher court.


Key Issues


The key legal issues addressed in this case include the validity of trust resolutions, the interpretation of the Alienation of Land Act, and the procedural handling of disputed facts in motion proceedings. The court also considered the implications of its ruling on the rights of the Nhlangwini community.


Held


The court granted leave to appeal, recognizing the compelling reasons for the appeal to be heard, particularly the potential for conflicting judgments and the broader implications for land management and community rights.


THE FACTS


The case arose from a previous judgment that invalidated a resolution of the Nhlangwini Trust, which had facilitated the transfer of land to the First Respondent. The Applicants, comprising Lisbon Developments and the Former Trustees, contested this ruling, arguing that the court had erred in its application of trust law and the interpretation of relevant legislation. They asserted that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success and would address issues of public importance affecting the Nhlangwini community.


THE ISSUES


The court was tasked with determining whether the Applicants had sufficient grounds for leave to appeal the earlier judgment. This involved assessing the validity of the trust's actions, the interpretation of the Alienation of Land Act, and the treatment of disputed facts in the context of motion proceedings.


ANALYSIS


In its analysis, the court reflected on the significance of the case, noting that it involved the management and development of land owned by a trust for community benefit. The court emphasized the need for clarity on how such matters should be handled, particularly given the potential for similar issues to arise in other communities. The court concluded that the case raised compelling reasons for appeal, as outlined in Section 17(1)(a)(iii) of the Superior Court Act.


REMEDY


The court granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, allowing the Applicants to challenge the previous ruling. Additionally, the court ordered that the costs of the appeal would be borne by the parties involved.


LEGAL PRINCIPLES


The judgment established key legal principles regarding the validity of trust resolutions and the management of land held in trust for community benefit. It underscored the importance of judicial clarity in matters involving land reform and the rights of communities, setting a precedent for future cases in similar contexts.

I
, ,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA
REPORTAB LE :NO (1)
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
28/07/2025
DATE
In the m atter between:
LISBON DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LTD
MAGIC BREAKAWAYS (PTY) LTD
LEGACY GROUP HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS: MPUMALANGA
NOMSA MUHLAWURI MANYIKE
MADODA ISAAC TJIE
CASE NO: 1904/2023
FIRST APPLICANT
SECOND APPLICANT
THIRD APPLICANT
FOURTH APPLICANT
FIFTH APPLICANT
SIXTH APPLICANT

1
..
I
-!
;
THEMBA TIBANE
MINiSTER OF LAND REFORM
AND DEVELOPMENT
and
INGRID MHLONGO
JAMES KHUMALO
THUTHANE ADOLPH T JIA
MAJIANE EVELINE MKHANSI
SAMSON MHLONGO
FRANK MHLONGO
2
SEVENTH APPLICANT
EIGHTH APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
FOURTH RESPONDENT
FIFTH RESPONDE N T
SIXTH RESPONDENT
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or parties'
representatives by email. The date and time for hand-down is deemed to be 28 July 2025
at 10:00.
JUDGMENT
Mashile J
[1] O n 19 February 2025, this Co urt granted an order in favour of the Responde nts in
the following term s:

r
3
"1. The resolution of the Trustees of the Nhlangwini Trust (registration number IT
1476/04 dated 12 January 2021, as well as any agreements signed by any person in
terms of that resolution, are declared invalid, void, and unlawful.
2. The transfer of the fixed properties known as the remainder of the Farm Lisbon
297 registration division KU , Mpumalanga and Portion 6 of the Farm Lisbon 297
registration division KU , Mpumalanga from the Nhlangwini Trust to the First Respondent
is declared unlawful and is set aside.
3. The Fourth Respondent is directed, in terms of the provisions of section 6(2) of the
Deeds Registry Act 47 of 1937, to cancel the Deed of Transfer T488/2022 within four
weeks of the date of service of this order upon the Lisbon Developments and the Former
Trustees.
4. Lisbon Developments and the Former Trustees are directed to pay costs of the
Applicants including costs of two counsel where applicable."
[2] The order above did not sit well with the First to Third Applicants ("Lisbon
Developments") and the Fifth to Seventh Applicants ("the Former Trustees"). In
consequence, they launched this application for leave to appeal against the whole
judgment and order of this Court asserting that this Court erred both in law and fact in
various respects, including in the application of trust law, the interpretation of the
Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981 and the treatment of disputed facts in motion
proceedings. Furthermore, the appeal, if granted, will have reasonable prospect of
success. It will also raise issues of substance and public importance, affecting the rights
and interests of the 148 households that make up the Nhlangwini community ("the
Community").
[3] The judgment and order are challenged on several grounds on which I have
profoundly reflected. I still stand by the judgment and order that I handed down on several
of those grounds. That said, it will not assist to address each one of them especially in

of those grounds. That said, it will not assist to address each one of them especially in
circumstances where I have concluded to grant leave anyway. This matter concerns the
sale, management and development of reinstated land that is owned by a trust for the
benefit of the community in which it exists. The main consideration to grant leave is the

J
i
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicants:
Instructed by:
Adv A Bishop SC
Adv S Mathe
Adv R Godlett
Adv N Tarmohamed
Staruss Scher Attorneys for 1 st to 3rd Applicants
Mcu lu Inc Attorneys for 5th to 7th Applicants
Counse l for the Respondents: Adv T Ngcukaitobi SC
Adv N Seme
Instructed by:
Date of Judgment:
Richard Spoor Inc
C/O Christo Smith Inc
28 July 2025
5

4
magnitude of the matter and that issues like the current are likely to surface in other
communities, which may fall under different provincial jurisdictions of the High Court. As
such, it is necessary that a higher Court finally pronounces on how the sale, management
and development of recovered land registered and owned by a trust should be handled.
[4] For the above reasons, I agree that the case raises compelling reasons
contemplated in Section 17(1 )(a)(iii) of the Superior Court Act, 10 of 2013, wh ich provides:
"(1) Leave to appeal may only be given where the judge or judges concerned are of
the opinion that -
(a)(i) ...
(ii) there is som e other compelling reason why the appeal should be heard, including
conflicting judgments on the matter under consideration;"
[5] Against that background, the application for leave to appeal succeeds and I make
the following order:
1. Leave to appeal to the Supreme C ourt of Appeal is granted;
2. Costs shall be those in the appeal
MASHILE ....
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA

Back to Law Reports