Mr Monwabisi Morris Njemla, claiming to act as chief and representative of the Kwalindile Community, obtained an interim interdict in the Land Claims Court preventing the KSD Local Municipality from proceeding with a development on a portion of Erf 912, Mthatha, pending negotiations and a land claim allegedly lodged under the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. The interdict was granted on the basis that the land was subject to a valid restitution claim and that development would frustrate that claim. A costs order was also made against the Municipality. Subsequent negotiations revealed, through correspondence from Njemla’s own attorneys, that the land in question had never been dispossessed from the Community and was therefore not subject to a valid land restitution claim. The Municipality then applied to the Land Claims Court for rescission of the costs order only, contending that the interdict (and costs) had been obtained on the basis of misleading and incorrect information. The Land Claims Court rescinded the costs order, and the executor of Njemla’s estate appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal was dismissed with costs. An application for leave to deliver further written argument was dismissed with a personal costs order against the appellant’s attorney. The registrar was directed to refer the judgment to the relevant law society for investigation of the attorney’s conduct.
The case confirms that South African courts, including specialist courts such as the Land Claims Court, have an inherent power to rescind orders obtained through misleading information, particularly in relation to costs. It underscores the duty of candour owed to courts in land restitution matters and clarifies that costs orders flowing from interim relief may be rescinded when the underlying relief was improperly obtained. The judgment also serves as a warning against pursuing appeals on costs alone without merit.