The Moletele Community and Others v Telkom SA SOC Ltd

The Moletele-related claimant communities lodged restitution claims under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 for extensive land, including Portion 64 of the Farm Grovedale 239 KT. Telkom SA SOC Ltd is the registered owner of a small portion of that land used for telecommunications infrastructure. During complex, consolidated land claims proceedings involving multiple claimants and landowners, Telkom sought a separation of issues so that the feasibility (restorability) of restoring the Grovedale property could be decided separately from the merits of the restitution claim. The court ordered such separation. Subsequently, the main claimants argued that because Telkom disavowed reliance on section 34 of the Act, Telkom had forfeited its right to contest the merits of the claim and that only negotiations with the Minister remained. Telkom disputed this, maintaining that it had pleaded both merits and non-restorability in the alternative.

The court declared that the lis between the main claimants and Telkom includes all issues raised in Telkom’s plea; confirmed that the prior separation of the restorability issue does not preclude Telkom from raising its other defences; ordered that if Telkom fails on restorability, the remaining defences will be determined thereafter; and ordered the main claimants to pay Telkom’s costs on an attorney-and-client scale in respect of this issue, with certain other costs reserved.

The judgment clarifies the procedural effect of separating issues in Land Claims Court litigation, confirming that separation does not imply abandonment of other defences. It reinforces orthodox civil-procedure principles within land restitution proceedings and underscores the court’s willingness to grant punitive costs where meritless procedural points cause delay and unnecessary expense.