Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others

Following the Constitutional Court’s decision in Land Access Movement of South Africa v Chairperson, National Council of Provinces (LAMOSA 1), which declared the Restitution of Land Rights Amendment Act 15 of 2014 invalid for failure to facilitate public participation, the Court interdicted the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights from processing land claims lodged between 1 July 2014 and 28 July 2016 (interdicted claims). Parliament was given 24 months to enact new legislation re-opening the lodgement of claims. Parliament failed to do so within that period and, after its expiry, applied for an extension of time to finalise the legislation. The LAMOSA respondents opposed the application and brought a counter-application seeking substantive relief regulating the processing of interdicted claims and prioritising pre-31 December 1998 claims (old claims).

The application for an extension by the Speaker of the National Assembly and the Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces was dismissed. The counter-application by the first to sixth respondents was upheld. The Commission on Restitution of Land Rights was prohibited from processing interdicted claims until old claims were finalised or the Land Claims Court granted permission. Detailed supervisory and reporting obligations were imposed, and Parliament was ordered to pay the costs of the first to sixth respondents, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reinforces constitutional accountability of Parliament to comply with court-ordered timeframes and underscores the Court’s remedial powers under section 172(1)(b). It clarifies the prioritisation of land restitution claims, protecting pre-1998 claimants from being prejudiced by later claims, and affirms the judiciary’s role in crafting detailed, supervisory remedies in complex socio-economic rights litigation.