The community had sought restitution of the land that had been expropriated from them. It comprised a number of farms in the Waterberg district.
Officials remiss and arrogant
The Restitution of Land Rights Act came into operation in 1994, "To provide for the restitution of rights in land to persons or communities dispossessed of such rights after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices." The Matabane Community fall into this group.
Judge Eberhard Bertelsmann said that in effecting redress, the law expects Land Claims officials to, "do anything necessarily connected with, or reasonably incidental to the expeditious finalisation of claims." It was clear from the evidence before the Land Claims Court that officials had been remiss in their handling of the Matabane Community's case and arrogant in their dealings with the court. Their "remissness", as the Judge described it, was not limited to this matter. Evidence before the court suggested that it was part of a bigger malaise.
Thousands of claims not yet finalised
Judge Bertelsmann said that is was: "disconcerting that between seven and nine thousand claims have not remotely been finalised almost twenty years after the Land Claims Act was passed." "One could be forgiven for assuming that under these circumstances land claims officials would be clamouring at the gates of Court insisting upon speedy resolutions of outstanding matters."
In the matter before court, land claims officials had early in 2007 established that the landowners, who were to be deprived of their farms, had rejected adjudication of their compensation claim through the Land Claims Commission's internal processes. They insisted that the matter be taken to court. Land Claims Court proceedings could only begin once the Commission has issued a Notice of Referral. This was not done.
Dragging of heels
Towards the end of 2007 the landowners obtained a court order compelling the Commission to issue the Notice of Referral. The Commission, unhappy with the Court's directive, unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal it. The Notice of Referral was finally issued late in May 2009. It was defective in a number of respects. Judge Bertelsmann: "There is no explanation on the papers why it took almost a year to take this step. Even less is there an explanation for the failure to fully include in such notice all information required by the Act and the Rules."
Hearings in the Land Claims Court - a court which has the same stature as the High Court - are preceded by a pre-trial conference so that the parties may agree on the further conduct of the case and limit the number of issues to be adjudicated upon. There were seven pre-trial conferences. The first took place in June 2011 and the last in May 2012. Bertelsmann found that this process had taken an unreasonably long time.
Judicial displeasure
Judge Bertelsmann: "The Commission and its functionaries have been remiss in the performance of their duties to advance the claimants' case as speedily as possible."
In the July 2011 pre-trial conference the defendants' attorney gave the Commission the addresses of all interested parties by so that they could be notified that the matter was heading for court and a decision might be made affecting their rights. At that pre-trial conference the Commission undertook to file at court a certificate relating to competing land claims and the State Attorney - the law firm representing the Commission - undertook to notify the interested parties. They all agreed that this would be done by 19 August 2011. This agreement had the effect of a court order.
By September 2011, when the third pre-trial conference took place, it became apparent that the undertakings by the Commission and the State Attorney had not been honoured. According to the judgment, the Commission was directed by the court to file an affidavit explaining how all of the court's previous directives had been dealt with. If the directive had not all been complied with, the Commission was directed to explain under oath:
- why it should not be held in contempt of Court;
- why is should not be ordered to comply with all previous orders within ten further days;
- why its legal representatives [the State Attorney] should not be ordered to pay the costs of two days of pre-trial conference de bonis propriis on the scale of attorney and client. In the alternative, why the Commission should not pay such costs on the punitive scale."
A costs order de bonis propriis is rarely made. It is a radical order, punitive in nature and conveys the court's disapproval of substantial misconduct by a litigant. The person against whom such an order is made has to pay the costs out of their own pocket. In the case of a state official, the relevant government department would not be held liable to pay the costs order on behalf of such an official.
The lamentable disregard for the Court's orders continued. Judge Bertelsmann: "In spite of this expression of judicial displeasure at the continued failure to comply with the Courts orders, no effect was given to them."
This Act makes provision for claimants lawyers to be paid by the Commission during the restitution process. Funding had been approved years before, but no money had been forthcoming. The Judge noted that this sort of failure is a factor that adversely impacts upon litigants' constitutional right of access to justice.
Constitutional litigation
The Judge observed that, "restitution of land rights is essentially constitutional litigation."
"The Commission is an Organ of State created for the very purpose of safeguarding the constitutional rights of claimants and landowners alike, who both find themselves in litigation with the State and whose interests and competing claims should be treated with due diligence and respect."
Contempt of Court
Judge Bertelsmann considered the defendants' request that a number of Land Claims officials be held in contempt of Court. "Attention must first be paid to the explanation proffered by the State parties for their remissness," he said. He singled out Mr Richard Mulaudzi, a Legal Administrative Officer in the Office of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner for the Limpopo Province.
Mulaudzi, in an affidavit, filed outside of the time limits set by the court, shared his personal views with Judge Steve Kahanovitz, the Judge who heard an earlier aspect of this claim: "I would not serve much purpose for the Commissioners to be deviated by the Court to appear. I did not find any compelling reason [given by Judge Kahanovitz] that necessitated that the Commissioner should be ordered to attend."
"Mr Mulaudzi's remarks regarding the need for the Commissioners to obey the Court's instruction are grossly inappropriate and display an extremely and highly regrettable attitude towards the Court's dignity and authority. Mulaudzi's views regarding the need to obey a Court's order are contemptuous and display an extremely worrisome ignorance of his duties as a civil servant employed by an organ of State toward the Courts in general and toward this Court in this matter in particular. Orders of court must be complied with, regardless as to whether they are issued correctly or otherwise, until they are recalled or set aside. This is a fundamental principle of a democratic constitutional State," said Judge Bertelsmann.
Referring to the time early in 1998 when Louis Luyt subpoenaed former President Nelson Mandela to testify to the South African Rugby Football Union case, Bertelsmann wrote, "Mr Mulaudzi would be well advised to study the example of the first post-apartheid President of the Republic of South Africa."
The Judge was unable to hold the Land Claims officials in contempt on legal technical grounds.
He expressed the Court's displeasure by ordering the Regional Land Claims commissioner to pay the defendants costs on the scale as between attorney and client.
Judge Bertelsmann further ordered that the matter be brought to finality as soon as possible.
We will be following the further progress of this particular land claim. Watch this space.
Source: Politicsweb
No comments:
Post a Comment