Greater Tenbosch Land Claims Committee and Others v Regional Land Claims Commissioner and Others

The case arose from one of the largest and most complex land restitution matters in South Africa, involving competing and overlapping restitution claims by several claimant communities over more than 150 000 hectares of land in the Malelane area, Mpumalanga, under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The trial was set down to commence on 2 August 2010 after years of case management and multiple postponements, many attributable to the main claimants’ lack of preparedness. Shortly before trial, the main claimants applied for a sine die postponement, contending that they could not proceed without an expert report by a court‑appointed social anthropologist (Dr Fisher), which was delivered late by the Regional Land Claims Commissioner. The State defendants and competing claimant communities did not oppose the postponement, but numerous landowner defendants opposed it or sought punitive cost orders. The postponement was granted, the trial was delayed, and the court was required to determine liability for the extensive wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

The postponement was granted, but the main claimants were ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement, including the costs of the opposing landowner defendants, on a punitive (attorney and client / attorney and own client) scale. The court reserved or determined costs against the claimants (with the State having previously borne some costs on their behalf).

This judgment is significant for reaffirming strict principles governing postponements in large land restitution matters and for confirming that the Land Claims Court will, in appropriate circumstances, depart from its usual reluctance to award costs in public‑interest litigation. It underscores judicial intolerance of repeated delays, non‑compliance with directives, and last‑minute procedural applications, even in restitution cases, and signals that claimant communities and the State may face punitive costs where litigation conduct is dilatory and prejudicial to landowners.