Civil procedure – application for condonation and reinstatement by appellants in Case 370/2017 (‘occupants’) granted in interests of justice despite egregious non-compliance with rules relating to heads of argument.
Contempt of court – occupants failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondent (‘Normandien’) in contempt of appellate process – contempt application, including related postponement application, dismissed.
Land reform – whether Minister has power under Land Reform: Provision of Land and Assistance Act 126 of 1993 to make land available solely for purposes of grazing – court a quo erred in compelling Minister to exercise permissive powers in favour of occupants – Minister’s appeal succeeds.
Environmental law – Normandien had standing to seek removal of occupants’ livestock on land overgrazed in violation of Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 (CARA) – labour tenants not exempt from CARA – removal of animals in terms of CARA not an eviction for purposes of Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 – occupants’ appeal dismissed.
Costs – Biowatch principle applicable to costs in court a quo and on appeal as between Minister and Normandien, ie parties to bear their own costs.
Costs – no grounds for interfering in court a quo order that occupants pay Normandien’s costs on punitive scale.
Costs – occupants’ application for condonation and reinstatement necessitated by joint failings by attorneys and counsel – contempt and postponement application an abuse having no substantive merit – attorneys ordered personally to pay Normandien’s costs of opposing said applications on attorney/client scale – attorneys and counsel precluded from recovering fees from occupants in respect of these applications.
Appeals – practice – papers in opposed interlocutory applications to be indexed and paginated.
Media Summary