Tlokweng church land dispute in court
Mpho Mokwape | Wednesday June 4, 2014 11:20
The Land Board had made an urgent application for contempt of court accusing the church and the Matlapeng family – which claims rights over the land – of not complying with a September 2010 Land Tribunal order that the disputed piece of land should not be developed except by government.
Yesterday, the Land Board argued that the Matlapeng family and the WCCC had violated the 2010 order by fencing sections of the disputed plot.
Land Tribunal president, Sampa Kaisara said the ruling would have to be delivered only after the disputed land is measured so that she can make an informed decision and not prejudice any of the parties.
“This is an urgent application but I cannot make any ruling without first knowing the length of the whole area because if it means I order the family to remove the fence, I would have to give them reasonable time to do so knowing how long the fence goes,” said Kaisara.
While the Land Board initially cited the WCCC as a respondent in the matter, the Tribunal removed it from proceedings saying the matter was rightfully between the Board and the Matlapeng family.
The church is built on land which for years has been disputed by the Matlapeng family and the Land Board. While the Matlapeng family argues that the land rightfully belongs to it as it was previously a farm field, the Land Board disputes the assertion and reportedly allocated plots on the land, resulting in some residents finding themselves fenced in.
Representing both the church and the family, Rammonye Matlapeng told the court that the family decided to fence the area as “a desperate measure” to prevent further developments in the area by residents “illegally” allocated plots on the land.
“The Land Board allocated plots despite knowing that we were contesting for it and allowed them to continue building structures despite the court order also applying to the Land Board as it is not ‘government’,” he said.
Rammonye said if the Tribunal orders the family to remove the fence, it should also demand that residents on the disputed plot remove their structures, “as they too will be in contempt”.
“We have no problem with removing the fence if the court says so as it was done as a temporary structure, but everyone should also be ordered to remove their structure within that area,” Rammonye said.
He added that, “The decision should not be selective as residents in the area will also be in contempt. It was up to the Land Board to serve the residents with that 2010 order barring them from developing their plots as the land was still under dispute”.
Rammonye said the only reason affected residents were upset with the church was because fencing material had been kept in the WCCC’s premises, even though it had not authorised the fencing.
“The family only asked the church to help with the storage of the fencing material as their yard is not fenced,” he said. The Land Board’s attorney, Tshiamo Motsumi however argued that if the family feels that residents in the area are also in contempt, it should make an application in court, just as the Land Board had done.
“The respondents fenced the area knowing that it was unlawful and that it was going to create problems for my client as they now receive complaints on a daily basis from frustrated residents,” he said.
Motsumi said that should the Tribunal find that the respondents are indeed in contempt, they should be ordered to remove the fence at their own expense and within a set time frame, to avoid further inconvenience.