Kgoshi M L Mamadini N.O. (In His Capacity as Acting Chief of the Babirwa Tribe and on Behalf of the Babirwa Tribal Authority) v ML Mosena and Others

The applicant, acting as Chief of the Babirwa Tribe and on behalf of the Babirwa Tribal Authority, brought an unopposed application seeking to set aside a lease agreement concluded between the First and Second Respondents in March 2008 in respect of farms known as DE GRACHT 272 MR PORTION 1 AND 3 (899.2318 ha) in the District Capricorn, Limpopo Province. The applicant also sought to preclude the Second Respondent (MEC Department of Agriculture, Limpopo Provincial Government) from selling, exchanging, donating, leasing, subdividing, rezoning or developing the land pending finalization of the Babirwa Tribe's land claim instituted under claim number KRP5089. The relief was claimed in terms of section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. Although notices of intention to participate were filed by the First, Second and Third Respondents, no answering affidavits were filed despite notices of bar being delivered.

• Whether the requirements for granting an interdict under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 were satisfied
• Whether the owner of the land had been properly notified of the land claim and of the provisions of section 6(3) as required by section 6(3)(b) of the Act
• Whether knowledge of a land claim by the MEC is sufficient to satisfy the notification requirement under section 6(3)(b)

The application was postponed sine die. The applicant's attorneys were precluded from debiting their client with fees in respect of the costs of the proceedings.

For an interdict to be granted under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, all six requirements established in Singh v North Central and South Central Local Councils must be satisfied. In particular, section 6(3)(b) requires that the owner of the land must be notified of the land claim and referred to the provisions of section 6(3) before an application for an interdict can be made. Mere knowledge of a claim by a government official (such as the MEC) is insufficient to satisfy this statutory requirement of formal notification. It is incumbent upon a party claiming relief under a statute to satisfy the court that all the requirements of the legislation have been complied with, and the court cannot assume compliance in the absence of proper evidence.

The court observed that the applicant may be able to satisfy the notification requirement by way of a supplementary affidavit. The court also noted that section 11 of the Act provides that immediately after publishing notice of a land claim in the Gazette, the Regional Land Claims Commissioner must give written notice of the publication, but the court cannot assume that such notice was given without evidence. The court referenced the principle from Secretary for Finance v Esselmann 1998 (1) SA 594 (SWA) at 598B-C that a party must set out the facts which entitle it to invoke a particular statutory provision.

This case clarifies the strict procedural requirements for obtaining interdicts under section 6(3) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994. It emphasizes that all six requirements established in Singh and Ga-Magashula must be satisfied, particularly the requirement that the owner of land subject to a land claim must be formally notified of both the claim and the provisions of section 6(3). The case demonstrates that mere knowledge by a government official (even the MEC of the relevant department) is insufficient to satisfy the statutory notification requirement. It reinforces the principle that parties seeking statutory relief must strictly comply with all legislative requirements and provide evidence of such compliance to the court.