Baphalane Ba Ramokoka Community v Mphela Family and Others; In re: Mphela Family and Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others

The Baphalane Ba Ramokoka Community applied to the Constitutional Court to rescind, alternatively partially expunge, its earlier judgment in Mphela and Others v Haakdoornbult Boerdery CC and Others. The earlier judgment upheld, in substantial part, the Mphela family’s restitution claim to the farm Haakdoornbult, from which the family had been forcibly removed in 1962. After selling Haakdoornbult under apartheid-era pressure in 1951, the Mphela family purchased another farm, Pylkop, using the proceeds and was relocated there after forced removal. Separately, in 1998 the Community lodged a restitution claim to land including Pylkop, which remained pending before the Land Claims Court. The Community contended that the Haakdoornbult judgment made pronouncements affecting Pylkop, despite the Community not being a party to those proceedings, thereby infringing its right of access to courts under section 34 of the Constitution. It sought rescission of the judgment or expungement of certain statements dealing with Pylkop.

The application for rescission or partial expungement of the Haakdoornbult judgment was dismissed. No punitive costs order was granted.

The case clarifies the limited circumstances in which the Constitutional Court will rescind or vary its own judgments and confirms that judgments bind only in respect of the parties, relief, and issues actually determined. It affirms that restitution judgments concerning one property do not automatically affect separate restitution claims to different land, even where factual histories overlap. The decision also underscores the distinction between binding orders and non-binding reasoning, and the high threshold for invoking section 34 access-to-courts arguments in rescission applications.