Kgoshi M L Mamadini N.O. (in his capacity as Acting Chief of the Babirwa Tribe and on behalf of the Babirwa Tribal Authority) v Mosena and Others

The applicant, acting as the Chief of the Babirwa Tribe, brought an unopposed application in the Land Claims Court seeking to set aside a lease agreement concluded in March 2008 between the first respondent and the Limpopo Department of Agriculture over certain farms (De Gracht 272 MR Portions 1 and 3). The land formed the subject of a pending land restitution claim by the Babirwa Tribe under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The applicant also sought an interdict preventing further dealings with the land pending finalisation of the land claim. Although the respondents were served and indicated an intention to participate, they failed to file answering affidavits. The applicant relied on section 6(3) of the Act as the basis for the relief.

The application was postponed sine die, and the applicant’s attorneys were ordered not to debit their client with fees in respect of the costs of the day’s proceedings.

The case underscores the strict procedural requirements for obtaining interim protection under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act. It highlights the Land Claims Court’s insistence on proper proof of statutory compliance, particularly notification to landowners, even in unopposed applications. The judgment reinforces procedural discipline in land restitution litigation.