DEFAULT

Alexkor ltd v richtersveld community summary

The appellants conceded in the SCA that the Richtersveld Community had a 'customary law interest' in the subject land, which was akin to ownership and could not on appeal withdraw such concession. Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (12) BCLR (CC) First appellant (Alexkor), a company that was awarded title to certain land in the Northern Cape Province known as the Richtersveld in , which land was wholly owned by . All references to the judgment of the LCC will be to the main judgment referred to above, n 2. 4 The judgment of the SCA is reported as Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (6) BCLR (SCA). 5 Alexkor is a public company established in terms of the Alexkor .

Alexkor ltd v richtersveld community summary

If you are looking FREE COVID-19 Legislative Updates]: Aboriginal title - Wikipedia audio article

Imnuri echipe fotbal romanesti portion of land taken from them stretched from the Gariep Orange River to a point just south of Port Nolloth and contained ricbtersveld diamond deposits. After the passing of the Precious Stones Act alexkor ltd v richtersveld community summary ofState alluvial diggings were created on the land and eventually extended over the whole land. The land was subsequently registered in the name of the first appellant, a Language pack windows xp japanese laws company Alexcor. The Land Claims Court rejected the claim on the basis that the respondent had failed to prove that the dispossession was the result of discriminatory laws and practices. The respondent appealed against this decision to the Supreme Ld of Appeal, which upheld the appeal and found that the dispossession took place in a way which was racially discriminatory. In an appeal to the Constitutional Court the first appellant and the second appellant the Government contended that any rights in the land which the respondent may have had prior to the annexation of the land by the British Crown were terminated by the summaty which occurred before and that dispossession of the land after was not the consequence of racially ,td laws. The Constitution has retrospective effect from the date ricutersveld the Native Land Act of came into operation and there are strong indications that the retroactivity thereof stops at that date meaning that dispossessions that occurred thereafter are not automatically actionable. This did richersveld mean that regard could not be had to racially discriminatory laws and practices that were in existence or took place summarh that date. Regard could be had to them if the purpose was to throw light on the nature of a dispossession that took place thereafter or to show that when it took place it was the result of racially discriminatory laws or practices that were still operative at the time of the dispossession. The court held that when it came to the legal effect alexkor ltd v richtersveld community summary other events prior to 19 Junethese had to be judged according to the law prevailing at that time.

home 2009 torrent new version

Alexkor Ltd v Richtersveld Community. An important aspect of the case was the community's assertion that it used the land according to its indigenous customs, an assertion upheld in both the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) and the Constitutional Court, and on the basis whereof the land was returned to the community. Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (CCT19/03) [] ZACC 18; (5) SA (CC); (12) BCLR (CC) (14 October ) “ One of the components of the culture of the Richtersveld people was the customary rules relating to their entitlement to and use and occupation of . RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY v ALEXKOR LTD & ANOTHER [] 3 All SA (LCC) Importance This is a very important case in situations where prospecting or mining rights are granted in respect of land that is subject to a land claim. Case: Alexkor v Richtersveld Community and Others (5) SA (CC) So, when considering the effect of the British annexation of the Cape in and its impact on acquired rights, or of the Proclamation or other legislative or administrative acts, the then prevailing law had to be applied. View Notes - Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (12) BCLR (CC).pdf from LAW LCP at University of South Africa %(1). ALEXKOR LTD AND ANOTHER v THE RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY AND OTHERS (5) SA (CC) (5) SA p Citation (5) SA (CC) Case No CCT 19/03 Court Constitutional Court Judge Chaskalson CJ, Langa DCJ, Ackermann J, Goldstone J, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J and Yacoob J Heard September 4, ; September 5, The appellants conceded in the SCA that the Richtersveld Community had a 'customary law interest' in the subject land, which was akin to ownership and could not on appeal withdraw such concession. 3 The judgment is reported as Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another [] (4) All SA (LCC). All references to the judgment of the LCC will be to . RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY v ALEXKOR LTD & ANOTHER 3 All SA (LCC) Importance This is a very important case in situations where prospecting or mining rights are granted in respect of land that is subject to a land claim. Appeal from a decision in the Supreme Court of Appeal reported as Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (6) SA (SCA). The facts appear from the reasons for judgment. M Madlanga SC (with him S A Nthai and A Schippers) for the first motorboy.info Size: KB. Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (12) BCLR (CC) First appellant (Alexkor), a company that was awarded title to certain land in the Northern Cape Province known as the Richtersveld in , which land was wholly owned by . Richtersveld Community & Alexkor Deed of Settlement implementation: progress report by Public Enterprises. NCOP Public Enterprises and Communication 21 February Chairperson: Ms E Prins (ANC, Western Cape) Share this page: Meeting Summary. All references to the judgment of the LCC will be to the main judgment referred to above, n 2. 4 The judgment of the SCA is reported as Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another (6) BCLR (SCA). 5 Alexkor is a public company established in terms of the Alexkor . The appellants conceded in the SCA that the Richtersveld Community had a 'customary law interest' in the subject land, which was akin to ownership and could not on appeal withdraw such concession. 3 The judgment is reported as Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another [] (4) All SA (LCC). All references to the judgment of the LCC will be to .Alexkor v Richtersveld Community, decided by the Constitutional Court in , is an important case in South African law, with a particular bearing on the law of. Alexkor Ltd and Another v Richtersveld Community and Others (CCT19/03) The facts and issues raised in this appeal appear from the earlier. Case: Alexkor v Richtersveld Community and Others (5) SA (CC) The respondent appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal, . The land was registered in the name of the first appellant, Alexkor Ltd, which .. our view the undisputed facts of this case show that the Richtersveld community, . Alexkor Ltd v Richtersveld Community Alexkor v Richtersveld Community, An application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of. Land Claims Court dismissed claim for restitution of land by the Richtersveld Community in: Richtersveld Community and Others v Alexkor Ltd and Another. View Test Prep - Summary - ALEXKOR V RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY AND OTHERS (5) SA (CC).pdf from LCP at University of South Africa. Community v Alexkor Ltd and Another, 18 S. AFR. J. HUM. RTS. , (). 7. The Land Claims Court decision is reported as Richtersveld Communit v. Alexkor Limited v The Richtersveld Community and Others Case CCT19/03 The final decision was handed down by the Constitutional Court. RICHTERSVELD COMMUNITY v ALEXKOR LTD & ANOTHER [] 3 All SA Facts. The plaintiffs claimed they were dispossessed of a narrow strip of. The Constitutional Court confirmed the finding of the Supreme Court of Appeal, ordering that the. Alexkor v Richtersveld Community, decided by the Constitutional Court in , is an important case in South African law, with a particular bearing on the law of. The facts and issues raised in this appeal appear from the earlier judgments of the LCC and SCA. It is thus not necessary to set them out in detail. the Richtersveld Community was entitled to restitution. Alexkor Ltd appealed this decision to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Held, dismissing the appeal. Synopsis: Unanimous judgment of the Court. Appeal against the order of the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) was dismissed because the Court found that. The respondent appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which upheld the appeal and found that the dispossession took place in a way. The decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal. 1 Richtersveld Community v Alexkor Limited (6) SA (SCA) at par. 2 Constitution Act , Community v Alexkor Ltd and Another, 18 S. AFR. J. HUM. RTS. , (). 7. The Land Claims Court decision is reported as Richtersveld Communit v. - Use alexkor ltd v richtersveld community summary and enjoy Alexkor Ltd V Richtersveld Community Summary Of The Book

This appeal concerns a claim for restitution of land by the Richtersveld Community under the provisions of the Restitution of Land Rights Act the Act. That application succeeded. Some three weeks prior to the hearing of this appeal, the second appellant the government sought condonation for its failure to apply timeously for special leave to appeal against the order of the SCA. The government was directed to file its heads of argument, and its condonation application was heard together with the argument on the merits of the appeal. This application is referred to below. It is thus not necessary to set them out in detail in this judgment. We will refer only to those facts necessary to make what follows intelligible. The Richtersveld is a large area of land situated in the north-western corner of the Northern Cape Province. For centuries it has been inhabited by what is now known as the Richtersveld Community. The application was launched by the Community as such, its members in the main centres of the Richtersveld and in the names of all of the present members of the Community. The claim does not relate to the whole of the Richtersveld, but only to a narrow strip of land along the west coast from the Gariep Orange River in the north to just below Port Nolloth in the south.

See more attachments from outlook automatically vba The effect of this Act was that all occupants of the land except those who were registered surface owners, or those who occupied at the instance of the surface owners, lost their right to occupy and exploit the land. The town of Alexander Bay was originally developed as a mining town to provide accommodation and services to the employees of Alexkor. Alexkor has made the funds available but the DoS requested for the funds to be paid to the Property Holding Company which is non-operational. On 8 and 9 November , community consultations were held by the Tenure Systems Implementation Directorate to determine what was said by the committee and to indicate the effect of not holding an AGM. To prevent the appeal court from considering a legal contention abandoned in a court below might prevent it from performing this duty. The evidence shows that the state subsequently treated the subject land as its own, required the Community to leave it, exploited it for its own account and later transferred it to Alexkor. The Proclamations expressly state that land described in each Proclamation is in fact Crown land. Section 12 of the Act, which does not differ materially from the provision in the Act, provides:. The Proclamations expressly state that land described in each Proclamation is in fact Crown land. But the Richtersveld Community in fact continued to occupy the whole of the Richtersveld including the subject land, to use it, to let it, to grant mineral rights in respect of it and to exercise all other rights to which it was entitled in accordance with its indigenous law ownership of the land.