High Court Judge Michael Mothobi last week dismissed an application by the Tlokweng Landboard for the decision of the land tribunal to be nullified and set aside.
The Tlokweng Landboard had filed an appeal with the High Court contesting the decision of the tribunal to remit the case back to the landboard for consideration. In its ruling the land tribunal found that there was no landboard decision or resolution on the particular complaint presented by Batlokwa, such that the matter was improperly before the court.
The tribunal therefore dismissed Batlokwa’s application for an interim interdict on the grounds that the case was not properly before court.
It also directed Tlokweng Landboard to hear and make a determination on Batlokwa’s complaints.
At the time, attorney Tshiamo Rantao said the Land Tribunal ruling was a technical interdict on the Tlokweng landboard, and immediately wrote to the landboard to advise them to suspend the allocation of the 285 plots until the Batlokwa case is heard and resolved.
“The landboard cannot continue with allocating the 285 plots while at the same time trying to resolve a dispute with Batlokwa over the same plots, as ordered by the landtribunal. They are supposed to give Batlokwa a fair hearing,” said Rantao.
He added that allocating the plots while there is still a pending matter regarding the same plots would suggest that a decision has already been made against Batlokwa.
He said that in his view the remittal was effectively an interdict against landboard from proceeding with its allocation.
During the appeal, Unoda Mack, appearing for the Tlokweng Land Board, argued that the Tribal Land Act requires a party appealing to a land tribunal to state the decision of the landboard which it is appealing against.
He said the land tribunal made a finding that there was no decision made by the landboard which denied the land tribunal jurisdiction.
He added that the land tribunal should not have proceeded to make consequential orders in a matter in which it had determined that it had no jurisdiction, but should simply have dismissed the matter without further ado.
Mr Mack said this makes the consequential orders made by the land tribunal a nullity and sought further relief that the decision of the land tribunal should be set aside.
For his part, Rantao, acting on behalf of the Batlokwa, argued that the land tribunal’s finding that their case was not properly before the courts was erroneous because there was on record a decision or resolution made by the Tlokweng land board. He argued that the decision to reverse the short listing of Batlokwa and negate the interview process pertaining to the allocation was confirmed by the land board.
In his judgement, Justice Mothobi referred to the Tribal Land Act (CAP:32: ) and its subsidiary legislation.
He said the land tribunal found that Batlokwa were aggrieved by the landboard’s decision of March 7 2012 to nullify the selection results.
“I must say I consider that the appellant took a decision and that this decision is a binding one for the sake of consideration of the applications that were made by Batlokwa when they were shortlisted and interviewed on 24-30 March 2011 and published in the press. The appellant was bound by this decision afterwards, and so were the defendants,” he said.
Justice Mothobi also said it was a fallacy to say there was no decision or resolution on the Batlokwa’s application and complaints.
He said the land tribunal erred by laying stress on a single meeting instead of considering the meetings holistically, as that would have enabled the tribunal to throw out the jurisdictional point and proceed to hear the merits of the Batlokwa appeal.
He therefore set aside the ruling and remitted the case for a re-hearing by the land tribunal. Batlokwa were also awarded costs of the appeal by the land board.
