Matladi on behalf of the Matladi Family v Greater Tubatse Local Municipality and Others

The applicant, John Buti Matladi, acting on behalf of the Matladi family, sought to protect a land restitution claim over Farm Leeuwvallei 297 in Limpopo. His late mother had lodged a claim under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, which was gazetted in 2007. While the claim was pending, extensive public and private development took place on the farm, including township establishment within the jurisdiction of the Greater Tubatse Local Municipality. The applicant applied to the Land Claims Court for an interim interdict under sections 6(3) and 11(7) of the Act to prohibit further development, arguing that continued development would prejudice restoration. The Land Claims Court dismissed the application, finding procedural non-compliance and holding that the balance of convenience favoured continued development. Leave to appeal was refused by the Land Claims Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was refused. No order as to costs was made in the Constitutional Court.

The case clarifies the application of interim interdicts under sections 6(3) and 11(7) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, particularly the decisive role of the balance of convenience in large-scale development contexts. It affirms that section 34(1) of the Act is discretionary and not mandatory for organs of state. The judgment also illustrates the Constitutional Court’s approach to leave to appeal in land restitution matters, balancing restitution rights against municipal service delivery and development obligations.