Farao, Christoffel and Another v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others

Mr Christoffel Farao lodged several land restitution claims in April 2016 under the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2014, allegedly on behalf of the Hanse family, including a claim over the farm Meideberg in the Ceres district. Following the Constitutional Court’s declaration of invalidity of the Amendment Act in LAMOSA, such post‑2014 claims were interdicted from processing. Separately, a deed of settlement had been concluded in February 2019 in litigation involving Ms Johanna Mankopan, limiting her livestock on Meideberg, and was made an order of court. Farao and the Hanse Family Land Claims Committee urgently approached the Land Claims Court to stay and set aside the implementation of that settlement, alleging it was procured under duress and in bad faith, and that it undermined rights flowing from their lodged (but interdicted) land claim. An interim interdict was granted ex parte, pending determination of locus standi and the merits.

The interim ex parte order staying and interdicting implementation of the deed of settlement was set aside and the rule discharged. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs jointly and severally on the party‑and‑party scale, including reserved costs.

The judgment clarifies the limited legal effect of interdicted post‑2014 land claims following LAMOSA, particularly that such claims do not automatically confer section 11(7) protection or locus standi to interfere with existing court orders. It underscores the evidentiary burden on claimants seeking interim protection based on contingent restitution rights and affirms respect for final settlements and court orders in related land tenure disputes.