The N’Wandlamhari Communal Property Association v Mathebula and Others (with the N’Wandlamhari Communal Property Association Concerned Beneficiaries as Intervening Party)

The dispute arises from competing claims to benefit from land known as the Mala Mala land, which was claimed under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The N’Wandlamhari Communal Property Association (NCPA) was established in 2013 as a joint entity of the Mhlanganisweni and Mavhuraka communities to receive and manage restored land. The plaintiffs (the NCPA and the Mhlanganisweni Community) instituted an action in 2019 seeking declaratory relief that only the Mhlanganisweni Community is entitled to benefit from the Mala Mala land, thereby excluding the Mavhuraka Community. After the trial had commenced, a group described as the NCPA Concerned Beneficiaries was granted leave to intervene as the fourteenth defendant. Three preliminary issues were raised between the plaintiffs and the intervening party: whether the current executive committee of the NCPA is legally competent and has locus standi to litigate, whether a valid resolution authorised the institution of the action, and whether the NCPA is conflicted in acting as plaintiff alongside one community against another constituent community. Evidence focused on disputed elections of the NCPA executive committee in October 2016, the status of membership verification, and a resolution allegedly taken on 9 March 2019 by members of the Mhlanganisweni Community to approach the Land Claims Court to separate the two communities.

The final determination and orders in respect of the three preliminary issues are not available from the provided judgment text, as the judgment ends before the court’s conclusions and operative order are set out.

The case is significant for disputes involving communal property associations and restitution beneficiaries, highlighting the importance of compliance with CPA constitutions in relation to membership verification, elections, authority to litigate, and internal conflicts. It illustrates the Land Claims Court’s careful scrutiny of locus standi and governance disputes before allowing restitution-related litigation to proceed.