Bester and Others v Minister of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC20/2022B) [2026] ZALCC 2 (19 January 2026)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: Land Claims Court South Africa: Land Claims Court You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Land Claims Court >> 2026 >> [2026] ZALCC 2 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Bester and Others v Minister of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC20/2022B) [2026] ZALCC 2 (19 January 2026) Bester and Others v Minister of Agriculture Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC20/2022B) [2026] ZALCC 2 (19 January 2026) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZALCC/Data/2026_2.html sino date 19 January 2026 IN THE LAND COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT RANDBURG Case no: LCC20/2022B Hearing date :  26 August 2025 Delivered date : 19 January 2026 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED In the matter between: BAREND CHRISTOFEEL BESTER First  Applicant BENCOR BOERDERY (PTY) LTD Second Applicant KWAGGASHOEK GAME RANCH (PTY) LTD Third Applicant OJALA TRUST Fourth Applicant LOTHAR WALTER FREY Fifth Applicant REIMAR HERBERT TRATSCHLER Sixth Applicant KURT SIEGFRIED MEYER Seventh Applicant DOWLING FAMILIE TRUST Eight Applicant REIMAR TRATSCHLER FAMILY TRUST Nineth Applicant LEW FARMING CC Tenth Applicant DEFACTO INV 255 (PTY)LTD Eleventh Applicant WINCOTE (PTY)LTD Twelfth Applicant JOHANNES CASPARUS LEMMER Thirteenth Applicant DANIEL STEPHANUS OLIVIER Fourteenth Applicant TROROW PROPERTIES(PTY)LTD Fifteenth Applicant GIELIE JACOBSZ TRUST Sixteenth Applicant R JACOBSZ TRUST Seventeenth Applicant VALENCIA BOERDERY CC Eighteenth Applicant and THE MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM First Respondent THE CHIEF LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER Second Respondent THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER: KWAZULU NATAL Third Respondent THE MAPHALALA COMMUNITY REPRESENTED BY NHLANHLA MAPHALALA Fourth Respondent ORDER 1. Condonation is granted to the Applicants in terms of Section 9(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) for the failure to institute this application within the time limits prescribed by Section 7(1) of PAJA. 2. A declaratory order is issued that the document annexed to the Notice of Motion marked “NOM1” does not  constitute a valid claim lodged in terms of Section 10(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994 (“ the Restitution Act”), read with Section 10(3) of the Restitution Act  and the Rules regarding the procedure of the Commission contained in regulations promulgated in Government Gazette 16407 of 12 May 1995 as per Notice R703. 3. The inclusion of the properties of the Applicants in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 referred therein as items 1 to 11,13,45,46,50,51,53 to 58,61 to 63,66,70 to 72,75,78,79 to 82,108 and 109 (the Applicants farms) is declared to be a nullity. 4. The decision by the Second or Third Respondents to publish in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October  2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 supra is reviewed and set aside 5. A declaratory order is granted that the referral of the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 above to this Honourable Court for adjudication in terms of Section 14(1) of the Restitution Act, constitutes an illegality and is set aside, deleted and/or removed from the referral of the claim to this Court. 6. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered and directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette in terms of which the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 above are removed from Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020. 7. The inclusion of the farm Vaal Bank No 1266 in Government Gazette 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 referred to as items 46,49,50,51,53 to 58,61 to 63,66 and 70 to 72, (the farm Vaal Bank) is declared to be a nullity. 8. The decision by the Second or Third Respondents to publish in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice No 584 of 2020 the farm Vaal Bank referred to in paragraph 7 supra , is reviewed and set aside. 9. A declaratory order is granted that the referral of the farm Vaal Bank to this court for adjudication in terms of section 14(1) of the Restitution Act constitutes an illegality and is set aside, deleted and/or removed from the referral of the claim to this court. 10. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered and directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette in terms of which the farm Vaal Bank referred to in paragraph 7 supra is removed from Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020. 11. The counter application instituted by the Third Respondent is dismissed. 12. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the applicants ‘costs on the party and party scale, such to include the costs of two Counsel on scale C, as follows: 12.1   The costs in respects of the response to the referral, by the Third Respondent, and the amended referral report in case Number LCC20/2022 such costs to include but not limited to archival research, consultation by the Applicants with two Counsel and an attorney, and D Whelan(anthropologist) and the drafting of the responses to the referral and the amended referral. 12.2 The costs incurred by the Applicants’ Attorney in respect of the taking of instructions from the First to Eighteenth Applicants from the time of publication of the claim in the Government Gazette, to date of this order and consultations to obtain instructions from the Applicants’. 12.3 All costs occasioned by this interlocutory application instituted by the Applicants under case number LCC 20/2020B, including but not limited to consultations with the First to Eighteenth Applicants, the drafting of the Review Application by two Counsel and the Attorney, and the drafting of the Replying Affidavit. 12.4 All the Applicants’ costs occasioned by the opposition of the Counter Application instituted by the Third Respondent. 12.5 The drafting of Heads of Argument in case number LCC20/2022B and the Counter Application by two Counsel. 12.6 The costs of two Counsel and attorney in respect of preparation for the opposed motion set down for 26 August 2025 and the argument of the opposed motion on 26 August 2025. # JUDGMENT JUDGMENT NCUBE J Introduction [1] On 11 May 2023 the Applicants, applied to this court for certain declaratory and review orders, pursuant to the decision of the Regional Land Claims Commissioner (“ RLCC ”), to include the properties of the Applicants in the Government Gazette as being claimed by the fourth Respondent (“ the Maphalala Community ”) and to refer the said claim to this court  for adjudication.  The First to Third Respondents did not oppose that application (“the main application”) Neither did they file any Answering Affidavit.  They have however filed a counter application.  The grounds on which the counter application is based, are substantially the same as those in the main application.  The Maphalala Community opposed both the main and counter applications. [2] The review of the RLCC’s decision, to publish the Applicant’s properties in the Government Gazette is brought in terms of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act [1] (“PAJA”).  The application for the review of the decision taken in terms of PAJA, must be brought by no later than 180 days from the date of the said decision [2] .  This review application was brought outside the period prescribed by PAJA.  The Applicants have therefore simultaneously filed the application for condonation, which was not opposed by neither of the parties and was accordingly granted on the date of hearing. Facts [3] The relief sought in paragraph 1,2,3,4 and 5 of the Notice of Motion relates to farms owned by the Applicants herein, legally represented by Messrs Christopher Walton & Tathan, not to all other farms reflected in the Government Gazette.  The Applicants’ farms are: Portion 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 8 of Deelspruit No 2596, Portion 0,1 and 2 of Kwaggashoek No 15568, Portion 2 of Moottos Kraal No 1194 Portion 1, remaining extent 4,5,23,7,8,9,10,11,13,15,16,17,20,24,25 and 26 of VaalBank 1266 Portions 2,5,6,7,8,9,35 and 36 of the farm Oppermans Kraal No 1257 [4] On 24 December 1998, Mr Sipho Peteros Maphalala, (“Mr Maphalala”) sent a letter to the RLCC.  The copy of the said letter is annexed to the Notice of Motion herein as NOM1.  The heading of the letter reads: “ APPLICATION FOR LAND CLAIM BY MAPHALALA TRIBE AT BERGVILLE” Paragraph 2.1 of the letter states: “ MAPHALALA TRIBE WERE RESIDING AT BERGVILLE ON THE FARMS WHICH WERE BELONG(SIC) TO THEM FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS BACK” The RLCC affixed a date stamp on Mr Maphalala ‘s letter.  The date stamp reflects the date as being the 31 st of December 1998. [5] On 12 October 1999 a certain Bhekani Patrick Maphalala , completed and signed a claim form on behalf of the Maphalala Community.  In the claim form the following land is being claimed: “ Bergville: Malotaskrall 1196, Deelspruit 2196, Gewaggashoek 1215 (15568), Oppermanskraal 1351, Goodhope 1266, Rustenberg 1304 ” The RLCC marked the abovementioned claim form as “GJ2”.  The claim form is dated 12 October 1999, which is long after the cut off date of 31 December 1998. [6] The RLCC caused the claim to be published in the Government Gazette.  The publication included the farms owned by the Applicants.  According to the Government Gazette, the claim was lodged by Bhekani Patrick Maphalala, on behalf of the Maphalala Community on 31 December 1998, which is not true.  On 08 February 2022, the RLCC referred the claim in question to this court.  In the referral the RLCC only included annexure GJ2, which is the claim form dated 12 October 1999.  On 13 February 2023 the RLCC filed an amended referral including the letter, annexure NMO1. Issues [7] The main issue to be determined is whether the letter NOM1 constitutes a valid claim form.  There are other ancillary reliefs sought by the Applicants.  Before dealing with the issues, it is prudent to look at the facts which are common cause between the partes. Common Cause Facts [8] The following facts are common cause between the parties. (i) “ NOM1 ” document was sent to the office of the RLCC by fax on 31 December 1998 in a letter form. (ii) A claim form GJ2 was signed by Bhekani Patrick Maphalala on 12 October 1999 after the peremptory cut off date of 31 December 1998. (iii) The Government Gazette Notice includes the farms shown in the claim form annexure GJ2 except for the farm Vaal Bank. (iv) The document in the form of annexure NOM1 dated 31 December 1998 was not lodged in the manner prescribed. (v) The claim form GJ2 dated 12 October 1999, has no date stamp of the RLCC affixed on it. (vi) The claim form annexure GJ2 was completed after 31 December 1998. (vii) The description of the land claimed by the Maphalala Community does not appear from annexure NOM1. (viii) The RLCC only allocated the reference number on annexure GJ2 and not annexure NOM1. (ix) The description of the land claimed appeared for the first time on annexure GJ2 dated 12 October 1999. (x) The resolution by the Maphalala Community was not lodged together with annexure NOM1. Defence Raised By the Maphalala Community [9]  The Maphalala Community avers that it was entitled to complete the prescribed form on 12 October 1999.  They claim further that the RLCC condoned the completion of the form on 12 October 1999 in terms of Section 11(2) of the Restitution Act and after 31 December 1998.  The community argues that the fact that NOM1 does not give description of the land claimed, does not invalidate the claim and that the description of the claimed land can be provided even after the cut off date of 31 December 1998. Does a letter NOM1 Constitute a Valid Claim Form ? [10]  The copy of the letter annexure NOM1 was faxed to the office of the RLCC and it bears the RLCC stamp of 31 December 1998.  As mentioned earlier in this judgment, the heading of the letter says: “ APPLICATION FOR LAND CLAIM BY MAPHALALA TRIBE AT BERGVILLE” Paragraph 2.1 of the letter states: “ MAPHALALA TRIBE WERE RESIDING AT BERGVILLE ON THE FARMS WHICH WERE BELONGED TO THEM FOR MORE THAN 100 YEARS BACK” [11]  Section 10 of the Restitution Act [3] deals with the lodgement of claims and it states: “ (i) Any person who or the representative of any community which is entitled to claim restitution of a right in land, may lodge such claim which shall include a description of the land in question [4] , the nature of the right in land which he or she or such community was dispossessed and the nature of the right or equitable redress being claimed, on the form prescribed for this purpose by the Chief Land Claims Commissioner in Section 16”. [12]  The use of the phrase “ which shall include description of the land in question ” indicates that it is peremptory that the claim lodged must include the description of the land so claimed.  In Makhuva- Mthebula Community v Regional Land Claims Commissioner Limpopo and Another [5] , it was held that the claim form is the primary source of information that is required in order to Gazette the claim.  Therefore, the description of the claimed land is a mandatory statutory requirement and failure to comply with that requirement, will invalidate the claim.  As this court observed in Gcumisa Land Claims Committee [6] “ Claiming someone’s land as your is a serious matter.  The claim must strictly comply with the requirements of the Act.  Publication of land in the Government Gazette as a claimed land has serious consequences for the owner as he can no longer deal with the claimed land as he pleases and without the consent of the RLCC” In Minanaar NO v Regional Claims Commissioner Mpumalanga and Others [7] , the court held that the publication of farms not claimed is not rationally justifiable and should be set aside.  The publication of land not described in the claim form in accordance with the provisions of the statute is equally not rationally justifiable and should be set aside. [13]  The claimed land seems to have been properly described in the claim form dated 12 October 1999.  The problem with that claim is that it was lodged after the cut off date of 31 December 1998.  In Bouvest 2173 CC and Others v Commission on Restitution of Land Rights and Others [8] Gildenhuys J expressed himself in the following terms: “ In terms of Section 11(1)(b) of the Restitution Act, the Second Respondent may not publish a claim in the Government Gazette if it is precluded by the provisions of Section 2.   A person is not entitled to claim restitution of a right in land of which he was not dispossessed, or which he did not claim by 31 December 1998 [9] . The acceptance and publication of such restitution claims are not authorised under section 11(1) read with section 2(1) of the Restitution Act and is therefore subject to judicial review under section 6(2)(f)(i) of PAJA ” The Maphalala Community concedes that the farm Vaal Bank 1266 which the RLCC included in the Government Gazette was never claimed.  That being the case, it stands to reason that those items in the Government Gazette that relate to Vaal Bank, should be expunged from the Government Gazette. [14]  Mr Bloukamp, Counsel for the Maphalala Community argued that the claim cannot be described as invalid because of the shortcomings which have been identified above.  He based his argument on the interpretation of the Restitution Act arguing that communities have no easy access to legal advice and that it will all depend on whether the relevant provisions of the Restitution Act are discretionary or peremptory.  As stated earlier in this judgment, the relevant provisions of the Restitution Act are peremptory and failure to comply therewith, will render the claim invalid.  The claim was also lodged without a resolution which is a peremptory requirement in terms of section 10(3) of the Restitution Act. [15]  Mr Bloukamp argued further, that since the RLCC assisted the Maphalala Community to complete the claim form on 12 October 1999, there was substantial compliance with the Restitution Act.  I do not agree.  The claim must be lodged by no later than 31 December 1998.  The claim lodged after 31 December 1998, is invalid.  There can be no substantial compliance with the Restitution Act where a claim is lodged on 12 October 1999. Review Proceedings and Extention of the Period of 180 Days [ 16]  In terms of section 6(2) of PAJA a court may review an Administrative Action if the decision taken was influenced by irrelevant considerations or where relevant considerations were not taken into account [10] .  It may also be reviewed if the decision was taken as a result of unauthorized or unwarranted dictates of another person or body [11] . [17]  In PS Group (Pty) Ltd v National Energy Regulator of South Africa and Another [12] Leach JA said: “ It is a fundamental requirement of administrative law that an administrative decision must be rational.  This is entrenched in section 6(2) (f) (ii) of PAJA which provides for an administrative action being reviewable if it is not rationally connected inter alia, to the purpose for which it was taken, the purpose of the empowering provision, or the reasons given for it by the functionary who took it. Administrative action is also reviewable under 6(2) (h) of PAJA if it is one which a reasonable decision maker could not reach- See Bato Star Fishing v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Others [2004] ZACC 15 ; 2004 (4) SA 490 (CC) para 44 ” [18] In terms of Section 7(1)(a) of PAJA a review must be instituted within 180 days from the date that the internal remedy had been concluded.  Therefore, in casu , the review application was supposed to have been lodged 180 days from 13 February 2023, the date on which the amended Referral Report was served on the attorneys and the date on which NOM1 was revealed. [19]  In Torlage NO and Another v The Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development and Others [13] Meer AJP expressed herself in the following terms: “ It was however only once the claim forms were received on 18 August 2021, that actual knowledge was obtained by the applicants that the farm Waterval No 51 had not been claimed by any of the three claimants.  They then realised that the publication in the Government Gazette that Waterval NO 51 had been claimed was wrong and that it was the farm Waterval No 148, a separate farm in the Utrecht district, which had been claimed.  The review application was brought within 180 days of both 18 August 2021, the date of actual knowledge of the irregularity and also within 180 days of 7 July 2021, the date of the receipt of the referral.  In the circumstances the review application was not brought out of the 180 day time prescribed by section 7 of PAJA ” [20]  Therefore, in casu , the applicants only became aware of the reason for the decision when the letter annexure NOM1 was received and it was annexed to the amended referred for the first time as it had not been divulged previously.  Therefore, the period of 180 days ought to be extended.  I turn now to consider the counter application lodged by RLCC. Counter Application [21]  The RLCC lodged a counter application.  The counter application seeks the following relief: 21.1: “ That the Third Respondent is granted leave, in terms of Rule 27 of the Rules of the Land Claims Court, to withdraw the referral of the claim to Land Claims Court in terms of Section 14(1) of the Restitution Act 22 of 1994. 21.2:  That the Third Respondent is directed to implement and finalise the process and procedure contemplated in Section 11A of the Act within 90 days of granting of this order. 21.3:  That the Third Respondent is directed to pay the costs of the 1 st to 17 th Applicants in respect of Case No LCC 20/2022 and LCC20/2022B at a party and party scale. 21.4:  Granting the Third Respondent further and alternative relief ” [22]  In summary the RLCC concedes that the claim lodged by the Maphalala Community is fraught with many challenges.  These challenges go to the heart of the claim and they render the claim invalid for want of compliance with essential requirements of the Restitution Act.  Therefore, in the counter application, the RLCC seeks leave to withdraw the referral to court of the claim and subject the claim to section 11A process.  Section 11A of the Restitution Act provides for the withdrawal and the amendment of the referral of the clam to court. [23]  In my view, the withdrawal of the referral will serve no purpose.  The document NOM1 dated 31 December 1998 renders the claim invalid for lack of description of the land claimed.  That cannot be rectified.  The claim form dated 12 October 1999 renders the claim invalid since the claim was lodged after 31 December 1998 and without a resolution in terms of section 10(3) if the Restitution Act.  That shortcoming cannot be rectified and there is no further investigation which can cure the defect.  No amount of investigation will validate such an invalid claim.  The counter application stands to be dismissed. Costs [24]  It is now trite that pursuant to the decision in Biowatch Trust v The Registrar, Genetics Resources and Others [14] , in constitutional litigation, if he land owner’s defence is good, the State ought to pay the costs.  As stated in the Biowatch case, particularly strong reasons must exist for a court not to award costs against the State in favour of a private litigant who is substantially successful in proceedings brought against it.  In this case, in its counter application, the RLCC consents to payment of costs on a scale as between attorney and client.  However, in its Heads of Argument the RLCC now tenders to pay costs on party and party scale. [25]  The Applicants insist on attorney and client costs, which are punitive costs.  As Mr Chaudree submitted in his argument, on costs, punitive costs are in the discretion of the court not just discretion but judicial discretion.  There must be strong and convincing reasons why punitive costs are awarded.  In my view, the Applicants did not make out a case for punitive costs. Order [26]  In the result, I make the following order: 1. Condonation is granted to the Applicants in terms of Section 9(1) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No 3 of 2000 (“PAJA”) for the failure to institute this application within the time limits prescribed by Section 7(1) of PAJA. 2. A declaratory order is issued that the document annexed to the Notice of Motion marked “NOM1” does not  constitute a valid claim lodged in terms of Section 10(1) of the Restitution of Land Rights Act No 22 of 1994 (“ the Restitution Act”), read with Section 10(3) of the Restitution Act  and the Rules regarding the procedure of the Commission contained in regulations promulgated in Government Gazette 16407 of 12 May 1995 as per Notice R703. 3. The inclusion of the properties of the Applicants in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 referred therein as items 1 to 11,13,45,46,50,51,53 to 58,61 to 63,66,70 to 72,75,78,79 to 82,108 and 109 (the Applicants farms) is declared to be a nullity. 4. The decision by the Second or Third Respondents to publish in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October  2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 supra is reviewed and set aside. 5. A declaratory order is granted that the referral of the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 above to this Honourable Court for adjudication in terms of Section 14(1) of the Restitution Act, constitutes an illegality and is set aside, deleted and/or removed from the referral of the claim to this Court. 6. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered and directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette in terms of which the Applicants’ farms referred to in paragraph 3 above are removed from Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020. 7. The inclusion of the farm Vaal Bank No 1266 in Government Gazette 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020 referred to as items 46,49,50,51,53 to 58,61 to 63,66 and 70 to 72,(the farm Vaal Bank) is declared to be a nullity. 8. The decision by the Second or Third Respondents to publish in Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice No 584 of 2020 the farm Vaal Bank referred to in paragraph 7 supra , is reviewed and set aside. 9. A declaratory order is granted that the referral of the farm Vaal Bank to this court for adjudication in terms of section 14(1) of the Restitution Act constitutes an illegality and is set aside, deleted and/or removed from the referral of the claim to this court. 10. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered and directed to publish a notice in the Government Gazette in terms of which the farm Vaal Bank referred to in paragraph 7 supra is removed from Government Gazette No 43834 of 23 October 2020 per Notice 584 of 2020. 11. The counter application instituted by the Third Respondent is dismissed. 12. The First, Second and Third Respondents are ordered jointly and severally one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the applicants ‘costs on the party and party scale, such to include the costs of two Counsel on scale C, as follows: 12.1   The costs in respect of the response to the referral, by the Third Respondent, and the amended referral report in case Number LCC20/2022 such costs to include but not limited to archival research, consultation by the Applicants with two Counsel and an attorney, and D Whelan(anthropologist) and the drafting of the responses to the referral and the amended referral; 12.2 The costs incurred by the Applicants’ Attorney in respect of the taking of instructions from the First to Eighteenth Applicants from the time of publication of the claim in the Government Gazette, to date of this order and consultations to obtain instructions from the Applicants’; 12.3 All costs occasioned by this interlocutory application instituted by the Applicants under case number LCC 20/2020B, including but not limited to consultations with the First to Eighteenth Applicants, the drafting of the Review Application by two Counsel and the Attorney, and the drafting of the Replying Affidavit. 12.4 All the Applicants’ costs occasioned by the opposition of the Counter Application instituted by the Third Respondent. 12.5 The drafting of Heads of Argument in case number LCC20/2022B and the Counter Application by two Counsel. 12.6 The costs of two Counsel and attorney in respect of preparation for the opposed motion set down for 26 August 2025 and the argument of the opposed motion on 26 August 2025. M.T.NCUBE JUDGE OF THE LAND COURT Appearances For the Applicants:                           Adv M.G. Roberts SC Adv E. Roberts Instructed by:                                   Christopher Walton & Tatham Incorporated: Ladysmith For the First to Third Respondent:   Adv RBG Chaudre SC Adv MD Zulu Instructed by:                                   State Attorney Durban For Fourth Respondent:                  Adv Bloukamp SC Instructed by:                                   LLM Attorneys Scottsville Pietermaritzburg [1] Act 3 of 2000 [2] Section 7(1) of PAJA [3] Act 22 of 1994 [4] My own emphasis [5] (1106/2018)[2019] ZASCA 157 (28 November 2016) [6] Gcumisa Land Claims Committee v Midlands Northlands Research Group (LCC22/2007) [20025] ZALCC 41 (14 October 2025) [7] (LCC42/06) [2006] ZALCC12(08 December 2006) [8] (LCC68/2006)[2007] ZALCC 7 (7 May 2007) Para 35 [9] My own emphasis [10] Section 6(2) (e) (iii) of PAJA [11] Section 6(2) (e)(iv) of PAJA [12] 2018 (5) SA 150 (SCA) para 40 [13] (161/2018B) [202] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2022 Para 19. [14] 2009(6) SA 232 (CC) para 24 sino noindex make_database footer start