South African Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commissioner- Western Cape and Others (LCC26/2010) [2022] ZALCC 34 (21 June 2022)

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 >> 2022 >> [2022] ZALCC 34 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## South African Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commissioner- Western Cape and Others (LCC26/2010) [2022] ZALCC 34 (21 June 2022) South African Riding for the Disabled Association v Regional Land Claims Commissioner- Western Cape and Others (LCC26/2010) [2022] ZALCC 34 (21 June 2022) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZALCC/Data/2022_34.html sino date 21 June 2022 IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA HELD AT RANDBURG CASE NO: LCC26/2010 Reportable: No Of interest to other Judges:No Revised In the matter between: SOUTH AFRICAN RIDING FOR THE DISABLED ASSOCIATION Claimant and THE REGIONAL LAND CLAIMS COMMISSIONER: WESTERN CAPE First Defendant SEDICK SADIEN Second Defendant THE MINISTER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM Third Defendant THE MINISTER FOR PUBLIC WORKS Fourth Defendant JUDGMENT Application for leave to appeal COWEN J 1. On 4 May 2022 I delivered judgment an application in terms of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules of this Court for leave to dispute the authority of Ighsaan Sadien Attorneys to represent the Second Defendant by calling on them to file a power of attorney duly executed by the Second Defendant. The application was instituted by the South African Riding for the Disabled Association (SARDA). I dismissed the application for the reasons set out in my judgment. 2. SARDA applies for leave to appeal. I heard argument on the leave application on 15 June 2022. Mr Wagener appeared for SARDA and Mr Joseph SC appeared for the Second Defendant. 3. Mr Joseph submitted that my decision is not susceptible to appeal whereas Mr Wagener submitted it is. In my view it is unnecessary to decide this issue as I am of the view that the application should, in any event, be refused. 4. While I agree with Mr Wagener’s contentions about how important it is that attorneys who act on behalf of others are duly mandated, including for the rule of law and the administration of justice, this cannot assist SARDA in this case for the reasons set out in my judgment. The arguments advanced during the hearing were not sustainable on the papers before me. 5. The case sought to be advanced in the application for leave to appeal is a somewhat different case. It is set out in the application for leave to appeal and I do not repeat it here. But that case is also not made out on the papers before me. To the extent that reliance is placed on the last paragraph of the e-mail attached as Annexure IS5, this is misplaced in view of the principles articulated in Theletsane, [1] Swissborough Diamond Mines [2] and D&F Wevell Trust [3] . To the extent that reliance is placed on paragraph 12.3 of the replying affidavit, it is trite that it is not open to a party to make out its case in reply. 6. Moreover, it was again quite apparent during argument in the application for leave to appeal, as it was during the initial hearing and indeed as appears from the papers, that the real issue in respect of which SARDA requires clarity is whether Sediek Sadien or the Sadien Family is the correct party, ie the Second Defendant. I dealt with this issue in paragraph 18 of my judgment. That important issue cannot be resolved via these Rule 7 proceedings. 7. I make the following order. 7.1. The application for leave to appeal is dismissed. 7.2. There is no order as to costs. COWEN J Date of hearing: 15 June 2022 Date of judgment: 21 June 2022 Appearances: SARDA:                                Mr Wagener Second Defendant:               Mr Joseph SC instructed by Ighsaan Sadien Attorneys ## [1]Administrator of Transvaal and Others v Theletsane and Another  [1990] ZASCA 156; 1991 (2) SA 192 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 132 (AD). [1] Administrator of Transvaal and Others v Theletsane and Another  [1990] ZASCA 156; 1991 (2) SA 192 (AD); [1991] 4 All SA 132 (AD). [2] Swissborough Diamond Mines (Pty) Ltd and others v Government of the Republic of South Africa and others 1999 (2) SA 279 (T) at 324F-325C. [3] Minister of Land Affairs and Agriculture and others v D & F Wevell Trust and others 2008 (2) SA 184 (SCA) at para 43. sino noindex make_database footer start