Pff anxs p1

PRB 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, HELD AT PRETORIA

CASE NO: 34502/2010

DATE: 2022-08-24

In the matter between

GRAND VALLEY ESTATE (PTY) LTD & 11 OTHERS Plaintiffs

and

MPUMALANGA TOURISM &

PARKS AGENCY & 24 OTHERS Defendants

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SARDIWALLA

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS : ADV J JOUBERT

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : ADV D JOUBERT (SC)

: ADV M HELLENS (SC)
: ADV L DE BEER
: ADV H MPSHE
: MR N GOVENDER

DIGITAL AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
Glen Manor Office Park Tel.: (012) 940 6821
138 Frikkie de Beer Str Fax: (012) 348 3542
Block 5, Suite 1/G www.digitalaudio.co.za
Menlyn
 Pff anxs p2

PRB 1
TRANSCRIBER’S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that, insofar as it is audible, the foregoing is a true

and correct transcript of the proceedings recorded by means of a

mechanical recorder in the matter of:

GVE & 11 OTHERS // MTPA & 24 OTHERS

CASE NUMBER : 34502/2010

RECORDED AT : TEAMS MEETING

DATE HELD : 2022-08-24

TRANSCRIBER : A FOURIE

NUMBER OF AUDIO FILES : 2

NUMBER OF PAGES : 77

REPORT ON RECORDING

1.

DIGITAL AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
Glen Manor Office Park Tel.: (012) 940 6821
138 Frikkie de Beer Str Fax: (012) 348 3542
Block 5, Suite 1/G www.digitalaudio.co.za
Menlyn
 Pff anxs p3
34502/2010 – af 74 W VAN HOVEN
2022-08-24
PRB 1
can’t see on what basis the e-mail from Mr Webb to Mr

Daniel has anything to do with this witness and it was

definitely not part of cross-examination or ...[indistinct].

ADV J JOUBERT: M'Lord, agree with my learned friend

on that issue. I think it is not necessary for us to go there.

Mr Daniel can testify to that extent in any event.

JUDGE: Yes.

ADV J JOUBERT: M'Lord, thank you very much. I think

we have completed this witness and we are ready then to

10 proceed with Mr Daniel’s evidence.

JUDGE: All right. Witness is excused. Thank

you for your assistance, Professor.

PROF VAN HOVEN: Thank you, M'Lord.

JUDGE: You are excused.

NO FURTHER QUESTIONS

ADV HELLENS: M'Lord, Hellens here, just a reminder

that we are adjourning at one o ’clock today and resuming at

...[intervenes].

JUDGE: What time is it now?

20 ADV HELLENS: It is 12:26. I am not suggesting Mr

Daniel should not be cross-examined. For your Lordship’s

planning purposes, I am just remindin g you that I have to

get to the airport. Our arrangement is we are adjourning at

one.

JUDGE: Ja well, in any e vent, I have news for

 Pff anxs p4
34502/2010 – af 75 JUDGE ADDRESS
2022-08-24
you and that is this.
PRB 1
I am exceptionally disappointed and

disgusted at the way in which thi s matter has been treated.

Parties were asked to narrow issues. Now, given the

evidence that I have heard thus far, a number of issues

were common cause. All these issues ought to have been

agreed on or finalised. But protracted litigation continuous,

protracted cross-examination. When these reports have all ,

they are common cause. Very few of them are really

contested. And it wasted the Court’s time.

10 I am stopping the proceedings at this

stage. I am directing that the parties within the next seven

days give me a report on what progress they have made in

settling all issues that are common cause and other issues.

This is a matter that is, can run for years at the pace and

the method that parties are running this. I don’t allow

matters to run in that manner. And the Judge President is

also concerned about th e way in which this matter has been

running.

So, I am now stopping the proceedings

20 for the parties to within seven days reach settlement on the

entire matter. Alternatively, on the better part of the

common cause issues. And I would like to see written

agreements between yourselve s. And if there is no

agreement, I want motivation as to why parties refuse to

agree or want the Court to decide. I am happy to deal with

 Pff anxs p5
34502/2010 – af 76 JUDGE ADDRESS
2022-08-24
PRB 1
only those that are issues that cannot be really resolved.

So, the matter is postponed sine die ,

but you could reve rt to me any time between now and the

end of next week to say we are ready and we have done our

homework, we have a presentation to as far as common

cause issues and we have narrowed the issues and this is

the duration of the matter from here onwards. Am I

understood?

ADV HELLENS: As your Lordship pleases.

10 ADV D JOUBERT: As the Court pleases, M'Lord.

ADV J JOUBERT: M'Lord, may I just ask just one

question, M'Lord? Is that we are as plaintiffs we have

really reached the point where the main witness, the main

person has to give evidence.

JUDGE: Yes.

ADV J JOUBERT: And I have always believed M'Lord, is

that the only way that the plaintiffs are ab le to curtail the

ambit of the trial and the history have proven that, has been

when evidence has been led. So what I have, what I

20 believe and of course, I am in the Court’s hand, the Court

will make the final ruling on it. But I just would like you

perhaps just to reconsider the possibility that we just

finalise Mr Daniel’s evidence before you send us on our way

to try and limit the issues.

JUDGE: No, I am not prepared to do that. I

 Pff anxs p6
34502/2010 – af 77 JUDGE ADDRESS
2022-08-24
PRB 1
want you to go and, that is the purpose. Because I am

certain that a number of issues that he is going to testify

would also be common cause.

ADV J JOUBERT: That is so, M'Lord. I think that is

absolutely so. But we as plaintiffs and we , we have not

found it possible to limit those issues with the defendants.

It has been impossible for us to do so.

JUDGE: Well, I am not directing the both and

there will be cost orders if there is no cooperation. So I am

10 directing both parties to narrow issue and be cooperative.

And I am not going to interfere with the process. You do it

between yourselves and your clients. Your in structing

attorneys must know my sentiments in this matter.

ADV J JOUBERT: As the Court pleases, M'Lord.

JUDGE: And the JP has expressed the same

concern. So, I need you to spend the time and get, and

revert to me by next Wednesday.

ADV J JOUBERT: As the Court pleases, M'Lord.

JUDGE: Thank you. Court will adjourn.

20 MATTER POSTPONED SINE DIE

COURT ADJOURNS
 Pff anxs p7
PRB 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 34502/10

In the matter between:

GRAND VALLEY ESTATES (PTY) LTD First Plaintiff

AND ELEVEN OTHERS Second to Twelfth Plaintiffs

And

MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY First Defendant

AND TWENTY FOURTH OTHERS Second to Twenty-Fifth Defendant

PLAINTIFFS’ WITH PREJUDICE PROPOSALS

IN COMPLIANCE WITH COURT’S DIRECTIVE OF 24 AUG 2022
THAT PARTIES MUST LIMIT THE ISSUES

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs have already provided an abbreviated version of their claim by stating that the
Plaintiffs' cause of action is a claim for damages in the form of compensation for financial
loss caused by the defendants who intentionally, deliberately and maliciously caused
harm to the plaintiffs' lawful rights and interests, by wrongful and unlawful means, all of
which they did in breach of their legal duties and whilst actuated by the improper ulterior
motive to advance the defendants' other unlawful activities.

2. As far as the elements thereof are concerned the Plaintiffs have said, and maintain, as
follows:
 Pff anxs 2p8
PRB 2
2.1. The plaintiffs’ rights and interests: The Plaintiffs owned various properties and
were pursuing a project to develop an important conservation and eco-tourism
project from which they would earn substantial income and profit.

2.2. The wrongful and unlawful means: There were a variety and multiple wrongful
acts over a long period. They included administrative frustration of applications and
permissions, publishing malicious falsehoods, arranging fraudulent transactions
related to alleged land claims, attempting to confiscate animals for resale, and
ongoing undermining of the Plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain justice.

2.3. The Defendants’ breached duties: The Defendants breached their statutory duties
inter alia to honestly administer the Restitution of Land Rights Act and Mpumalanga
Nature Conservation Act No. 10 of 1998 as also required by the Constitution.

2.4. The harm to Plaintiffs’ lawful rights and interests: Plaintiffs were in effect driven
off their land and forced to abandon their Project and sell their rights at a fraction of
the value but for Defendants' wrongful conduct.

2.5. The financial loss that was caused by the Defendants’ said conduct included loss
of the opportunity to complete the Project and earn the income and profit that they
would have earned but for Defendants' wrongful conduct, and serious damage to
the 11th Plaintiffs’ reputation.

2.6. The improper ulterior motive was to get rid of the Plaintiffs whose project stood in
the way of the Defendants’ other unlawful activities namely profiting from fraudulent
transactions related to land claims, allowing illegal barrier fences to shrink the
Reserve to benefit cattle farmers, and selling animals that should have been
protected, to hunters.

PROPOSAL

3. In what follows, Plaintiffs seek to determine and delineate what is really in dispute, not by
 Pff anxs 3p9
PRB 2
way of bare denials or evasive responses 1, but by way of positive allegations of facts
that are contrary to Plaintiffs’ version. Every such alleged dispute must provide detail of:

3.1. Name of Defendants’ witnesses that will give such evidence, and

3.2. Content of such contrary evidence, and

3.3. Which document/s at which page/s will be relied on in support of any such contrary
evidence.

4. Plaintiffs will ask for a further direction from the Court, on Wednesday 31 August 2022,
that any fact or document relied on by the Plaintiffs in any of the following:

A) Transcripts of Plaintiffs’ evidence to date.

B) Statement of Material Facts by Fred Daniel (Doc 9552 – exhibit B2-1).

C) Documents referred to in above statement, including the Annexures A-N as described

in paragraph 193 of the statement, most of which can also be found on Cognotes,
Exhibits B2-2 – B2-10.2

D) Daniel’s Founding affidavit and Annexures in the Tolmay case (Cognotes Section D-1 -
Tolmay case Daniel docs) marked as D1-1 up to D1-201.

will be accepted as proved, unless disputed as above stating the name of witness that
will give such contrary evidence, and which document/s at which page/s will be relied on
in support of any such contrary version.

5. In other words, Defendants are required to provide written non-evasive responses, with
separate paragraph numbers in respect of every dispute fact or document relied on by
the Plaintiffs as referred to in paragraph 4 A-D above.

1
Refer Wightman v Headfour (Pty) Ltd [2008] ZASCA 6 re bare denials in application proceedings not good enough.
2
Please convey any difficulties you may have to access documents. We shall provide same by email.
 4
Pff anxs p10

6.
PRB 2
Defendants must clearly state the name of every witness that will give such contrary
evidence, and which document/s at which page/s will be relied on in support of any such
contrary version, separately in regard to every disputed fact and document relied on by
Plaintiffs.

7. Any facts or documents relied on by Plaintiffs as above and not placed in real dispute as
above will be subject to the requested directive that such of Plaintiffs’ facts and
documents may be accepted as proven by the Court.

8. We shall provide for your convenience, in case of network or server problems, a link to a
zip file containing the documents in 4 C and 4 D above, without the Tolmay Annexures.

9. We also require direct detailed and non-evasive responses to Plaintiffs’ two requests for
admissions dated 1 August 2022 (A6-36 & A6-37).

TIMELINE

10. We shall provide an invitation to a Zoom meeting for 10H00 Friday 26 August 2022 which
will be recorded and transcribed as part of our report to the Judge. The purpose of the
Zoom meeting is to discuss the above and consider any proposals that the Defendants
may make.

11. We require written responses as referred to above by 09H00 on Monday 29 August 2022.

12. Final reports by Plaintiffs and Defendants must be exchanged by 16H00 on Tuesday 30
August 2022 and copied to the Judge’s registrar with the understanding that the hearing
will resume (as directed) at 10H00 on Wednesday 31 August 2022 to report back and
obtain further directions from the Court.

____________________

Adv J Joubert for Plaintiffs.

 Pff anxs p11
PRB 3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, HELD AT PRETORIA

CASE NO: 34502/2010

DATE: 2022-08-29

In the matter between

GRAND VALLEY ESTATE (PTY) LTD & 11 OTHERS Plaintiffs

and

MPUMALANGA TOURISM &

PARKS AGENCY & 24 OTHERS Defendants

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SARDIWALLA

ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS : ADV J JOUBERT

ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS : ADV D JOUBERT (SC)

: ADV M HELLENS (SC)
: ADV L DE BEER
: ADV H MPSHE
: MR N GOVENDER

DIGITAL AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
Glen Manor Office Park Tel.: (012) 940 6821
138 Frikkie de Beer Str Fax: (012) 348 3542
Block 5, Suite 1/G www.digitalaudio.co.za
Menlyn
 Pff anxs p12
PRB 3
TRANSCRIBER’S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that, insofar as it is audible, the foregoing is a true and

correct transcript of the proceedings recorded by means of a mechanical

recorder in the matter of:

GVE & 11 OTHERS // NTPA & 24 OTHERS

CASE NUMBER : 34502/2010

RECORDED AT : TEAMS MEETING

DATE HELD : 2022-08-29

TRANSCRIBER : SJE DEYSEL

NUMBER OF AUDIO FILES : 1

NUMBER OF PAGES : 3

REPORT ON RECORDING

DIGITAL AUDIO
RECORDING TRANSCRIPTIONS
Glen Manor Office Park Tel.: (012) 940 6821
138 Frikkie de Beer Str Fax: (012) 348 3542
Block 5, Suite 1/G www.digitalaudio.co.za
Menlyn
 2 Pff anxs p13
34502/2010 – sjed
2022-08-29 PRB 3
PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 23 AUGUST 2022
DISCUSSION

ADV J JOUBERT: Morning colleagues, are you ready to start?

ADV D JOUBERT: Yes, I am on the platform, it appears, I do not think

we should have this meeting recorded, it should be without prejudice.

ADV J JOUBERT: You know, the Judge asked us to keep record of all

our …[intervenes]

ADV D JOUBERT: No, no, no, that is not what the Judge said, he says

we must report back to him in writing, not to keep record and record our

meetings, that is not what he said, unless you can take me back to the

transcribed record stating that, because I am upset, Jacques, you cannot say

things which is not factually correct, you have said it many times and it irritates

us, because it should not, it is not, we are all officers of the court, we should

do things properly, we should not say and make submissions and propositions

if that is not factually what is on record, you should stop doing it and it upsets

me.

ADV J JOUBERT: Dawie, the …[intervenes]

ADV D JOUBERT: I object to this meeting being recorded; it should be

done without prejudice.

ADV J JOUBERT: Look, if we have settlement discussions I

understand that would be without prejudice, we can stop the recording, but we

need to report back to the Judge about our efforts to curtail the ambit of the

trial, so I say we continue, we record it and …[intervenes]

ADV D JOUBERT: I object, I object to participate in this meeting if it is

recorded.

ADV J JOUBERT: Why do you object to it?

 3 Pff anxs p14
34502/2010 – sjed
2022-08-29
ADV D JOUBERT:
PRB 3
Because I have said the reasons why.
DISCUSSION

ADV J JOUBERT: Why, I do not understand the reasons?

ADV HELLENS: Well I am going to leave the meeting if a without

prejudice discussion is being recorded, because it will be misuse by you, you

twist facts and you distort facts and you do not understand your own case, for

example you say that this trial will resume on Wednesday, that is not the ruling,

the ruling is we report back on Wednesday and the case is postponed sine

die, I do not know where you get this from, Jacques.

ADV J JOUBERT: Let us just calm down a bit and let us just stick to

the first …[intervenes]

ADV D JOUBERT: No, we are not going to calm down, you have to do

things correctly, I am not going to participate further if we do not do it correctly

in accordance with, we are officers of the court, you and us all have an ethical

duty to do things the right way and not the wrong way, I am not going to

participate further, as Mike say, you tell us now whether we need to leave or

are we going to continue.

ADV J JOUBERT: We are not going to back down on this issue, we

believe if we have got nothing to hide, you have got nothing to hide, let us

…[intervenes]

ADV HELLENS: Right, then Hellens is leaving the meeting,

goodbye.

ADV D JOUBERT: Dawie Joubert is leaving the meeting.

ADV J JOUBERT: Oh.

END OF DISCUSSION

RECORDING OFF
 Pff anxs p15
PRB 4
REQUESTS TO CURTAIL AMBIT OF THE TRIAL

Introductory overview aspects

1. May we please have your written proposals to implement the judge’s directive to
curtail the ambit of the trial at close of business today?

2. Do Defendants accept that the Plaintiffs’ proposals are reasonable under the
prevailing circumstances? If not why not?

3. Are the Defendants considering closing their case so that the matter can be
argued? If not, how many witnesses do they intend to call?

Plaintiffs further questions and proposals

4. Briefly, re our proposals para 2:

4.1. Are the Plaintiffs’ rights and interests as stated admitted? If not why not?

4.2. Wrongful and unlawful means – we accept that will be the major area for
dispute, let’s await your detailed responses by Monday.

4.3. Do 1st and 4th Defendants contend that they complied with all their statutory
duties?

4.4. Do Defendants deny that Plaintiffs were in effect driven off their land? If so,
why and on what basis?

4.5. Do Defendants admit the alleged ulterior motives? If not why not?
 2 p16
Pff anxs

5.
PRB 4
How long do you estimate the cross examination of Mr Daniel will last?

6. Do you agree that one court day should be sufficient, specially once you have
clarified what is really disputed by way of contrary evidence?

7. Do you deny that in general terms, a court has the power to control the
proceedings which includes preventing abuse of process?

8. Do Defendants admit that the court may impose reasonable time limits on
examination in chief and cross examination? If not why not?

9. What do Defendants suggest will be reasonable time limits for the further
examination in chief and cross examination of the further witnesses?

10. We suggest one day for Daniel cross examination and for all further witnesses
one hour in chief and one hour in cross examination.

11. Will Defendants provide a written summary of the material facts that their
witnesses will testify to? If not, why not?

12. Will Defendants provide a copy of the alleged prescribed application form
(available between 2005 – 2008) for the authorisation of landowners to
reintroduce lion to Reserve as opposed to the prescribed form to be completed
by game dealers to convey lion?

13. Is it the Defendants’ case that the Plaintiffs never applied for the authorisation to
keep lion?

14. Is it Defendants’ case that the Nkomazi Wilderness owned by the Plaintiffs never
qualified for the authorisation to keep lion?

15. Is it Defendants’ case that Nkomazi Wilderness did not comply with the technical
requirements for the issuing of permits to game dealers to convey lion to the
Reserve? If so, which technical requirements were outstanding?
 3 p17
Pff anxs
PRB 4
16. Do Defendants dispute the contents of Dr Engelbrecht’s affidavit at B-44 ?

17. Do the Defendants agree that Koos De Wet’s affidavit at B-45 may be admitted
as evidence? If not, why?

18. Do the Defendants’ agree that Bruce Hutchinson’s affidavit at B-818 may be
admitted as evidence? If not, why?

19. How did the application for lions by Dubai World differ from the documents or
applications for lion previously submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs?

20. Do Defendants admit that the Dubai World lion application was the same
documents previously submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs after removing Plaintiffs’
name/s and inserting Dubai Worlds’ name/s? If not, why not?

21. Why would the 4th Defendant not agree to mediation as suggested by Richard
Spoor?

22. Did 4th Defendant have access to title deeds from the Deeds Office or elsewhere
– such as those referred to in the Delius report? If not, why not?

23. Did 1st Defendant consent to the erection of the barrier fence that reduced the
size of the reserve to less than 6000 Ha? If so, why?

24. Do Defendants admit that the barrier fence breached the Elephant permit
conditions? If not, why not?

25. Do Defendants admit that the breach of the Elephant permit caused damage to
the biodiversity of the Reserve?

26. Further specific questions may be sent by email over the weekend. To which
email addresses should they be sent?
 4 p18
Pff anxs
PRB 4
__________________

Jacques Joubert

Plaintiffs’ counsel
 Pff anxs p19
PRB 5
Office of the State Attorney
Pretoria
PRIVATE BAG X 91 SALU BUILDING
PRETORIA 316 THABO SEHUME STREET
0001 CNR FRANCIS BAARD AND
THABO SEHUME STREET

TEL: (SWITCHBOARD): (012) 309 1500

(DIRECT LINE): (012) 309 1533
(SECRETARY): (012) 309 1515

FAX: (012) 309 1649/50

DOCEX: 298

29 AUGUST 2022

Enq: MR. N GOVENDER My Ref: 4051/10/Z61

Email: NeGovender@justice.gov.za Your Ref: MR P C LESSING/HN/G103

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
TO:
DLBM INCORPORATED ATTORNEYS
BY EMAIL: litigation@dlbm.co.za & lessing@dlbm.co.za

Dear Sir/Madam

IN RE: GRAND VALLEY ESTATES (PTY) LIMITED & 11 OTHERS v

MPUMALANGA TOURISM PARK AGENCY & 24 OTHERS: - PART

HEARD CASE NO: 34502/2010

1 We refer to the document served on our offices on 25 August 2022 at 12h22,

titled “Plaintiffs’ with prejudice proposals in compliance with the court’s directive

of 24 August 2022 that parties must limit the issues”.

 2 p20
Pff anxs

2
PRB 5
A virtual meeting was called for by the plaintiffs’ attorneys for 11h00 on Friday,

26 August 2022. The meeting commenced with the recording function being

activated. The defendants’ counsel indicated they were prepared to have

‘without prejudice’ discussions in order to convenience such narrowing of

issues that might be achievable in the prevailing circumstances. On behalf of

their respective clients, the defendants’ counsel were not prepared to have ‘with

prejudice’ discussions which were recorded by the plaintiff’s counsel.

3 Clearly the function of recording the discussions would be to use the contents

of those discussions, within the context of this part-heard trial, against such

parties as participated in the discussions.

4 There were repeated requests made not to record the discussions in order to

facilitate a ‘without prejudice’ interchange on the necessary issues between the

parties. The counsel for the plaintiffs insisted that he would “not back down on

this issue”. In the circumstances counsel for the defendants terminated the

virtual meeting with no progress being made whatsoever.

5 In response to the proposals referred to above, and on behalf of the both the

MTPA defendants and the RLCC whom we represent, the following must be

placed on record:-

5.1 The attempted analysis of the nature of the plaintiffs’ case contained in

this document is not in accordance, and indeed at odds with the pleaded

case of the plaintiffs in the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim as finally

amended.
 3 p21
Pff anxs

5.2
PRB 5
Accordingly, whilst the plaintiffs attempt to set the background of the

alleged claims, the plaintiffs do so in a manner which is out of kilter and

indeed contradictory of the plaintiffs’ pleaded case as finally amended.

5.3 The proposal contained in paragraphs 3, 3.1 to 3.3 refers to that which

has many times been used as an expression by plaintiffs’ counsel in this

case, namely to be “bare denials” or “evasive responses”. Authority is

referred to where, in a reported case, it is said that bare denials in

‘application proceedings are not good enough’. This is well known

authority. It is a correct proposition. This is because in application

proceedings, the affidavits define both the pleading of the cause of

action and the evidence underlying the cause of action. It is therefore not

appropriate in application proceedings to make bare denials.

5.4 However, in action proceedings a plaintiff makes averments in its

particulars of claim which, in due course during the trial, by means of

admissible evidence, it intends proving. A defendant is called upon to

admit or deny (in other words to place in issue or not place in issue) the

averments in its plea. There is no such thing as a “bare denial” in action

proceedings. The plaintiffs are advised to have regard to their particulars

of claim and to the plea, and therefore to prove that which is alleged in

the particulars of claim and which is denied in the defendants’ plea. This

is of course modified by such admissions that have been made in pre-

trial conferences. In this instance the plaintiffs plead an alleged a delict

which was committed, which delict is denied by the defendants in the

pleadings.
 4 p22
Pff anxs

5.5
PRB 5
The above analysis shows that the plaintiffs do not understand the

nature of that which they are engaged in this civil trial.

6 The request contained in paragraphs 3; 3.1; 3.2 and 3.3 is unheard of in civil

trial proceedings, impermissible of request, and an untenable proposition

unheard of in trial proceedings.

7 With regard to the contents of paragraph 4, the requests contained therein are

impermissible in trial proceedings and out of line, inter alia with the law of

evidence. These requests within themselves make no sense. The statement is

“plaintiff will ask for a further direction from the court on Wednesday 31 August

2022 that any fact or document relied on by the plaintiffs in any of the following

…. will be accepted as proved unless disputed …” The list of that which is

accepted as proved, is the following:-

7.1 Transcripts of plaintiffs’ evidence to date: There is a transcription of

plaintiffs’ evidence to date. It need not be proved, because it exists. But

it is inappropriate to ask the court, before it is even cross-examined and

before judgement is given, to give a ruling that the transcripts of the

plaintiffs’ evidence are accepted as proved.

7.2 It is unheard of and un-procedural to ask of the defendants to state the

name of the witness who will give contrary evidence to the evidence of

the plaintiffs, and in addition to ask which documents at which pages will

be relied on in support of any such contrary version(s). The defendants

are free to cross-examine the plaintiffs, and more specifically Mr F Daniel

who is the 11th plaintiff on the evidence given, with no duty to disclose to
 5 p23
Pff anxs
PRB 5
the plaintiffs in advance what questions will be posed and the material

which will be relied on. It is the very essence of cross-examination not to

reveal the nature of the cross-examination, because that is the tool by

which the truth becomes exposed.

7.3 With regard to paragraph B of paragraph 4, the statement of material

facts by Mr Fred Daniel has been ruled inadmissible by virtue of the

provisions of Section 34(3) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of

1965 and the applicable case law already referred to. No reference can

be made thereto.

7.4 The same comment as aforesaid applies to paragraph C of paragraph

4.

7.5 In paragraph D of paragraph 4 the plaintiffs seek to hold as admissible

evidence the founding affidavit and annexures thereto in the Tolmay

motion application case. This evidence is wholly inadmissible by virtue

of it being both a leading question encapsulating a host of evidence

without that evidence being led. In addition, it is also inadmissible in

terms of Section 34(3) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965

for the same reasons as to why the so-called statement of material facts

by Mr Fred Daniel, who is the 11th plaintiff, is inadmissible.

8 The court will be asked to rule when the matter next resumes, it having been

postponed sine die, to make a ruling as to admissibility of the Tolmay case’s

record. The ruling already exists with regard to the statement of material facts

by Mr Fred Daniel.
 6 p24
Pff anxs

9
PRB 5
The response to paragraphs 5; 6; 7 and 8 flow from the above.

10 In addition, on behalf of the RLCC, the following questions are posed, which

the plaintiffs are free to answer or not, as the plaintiffs see fit:-

10.1 The plaintiffs are once again referred to paragraph 44 of their particulars

of claim wherein the following is stated:-

“Before acquiring the land, the eleventh Plaintiff had detailed enquiries and

investigations made to ascertain whether land claims existed or whether the

properties could legally be susceptible to land claims in terms of the Restitution

of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994. The enquiries and investigations showed no

land claims existed and no valid land claims could be lodged against the

properties. However the Fourth, Seventh and Twenty-fifth Defendants

orchestrated land claims being lodged against properties in Badplaas Valley,

including the land of the Nkomazi Reserve, which land comprised of the exact

boundaries that the Plaintiff had identified for the project.”

With reference to that set out above, the defendants seek the following

admissions from the plaintiffs:-

10.1.1 On the pleadings as they stand the plaintiffs’ cause of action, in

so far as the land claim is concerned, is the following:-

10.1.1.1 No land claims existed and/or no land claims could validly

be lodged against the plaintiffs’ properties as at the date of

acquisition of the various properties by the plaintiffs.

 7 p25
Pff anxs

10.1.1.2
PRB 5
The 4th-, 7th- and 25th defendants orchestrated land claims

being lodged against the plaintiffs’ properties in the

Badplaas area.

10.1.1.3 The orchestration of land claims comprise the exact

boundaries that the plaintiffs had identified for the project.

10.1.2 In light of the above and with reference to the plaintiffs’ cause of

action, the plaintiffs are requested to admit the following:-

10.1.2.1 Various land claimants had lodged land claims in the

prescribed manner, i.e. prior to the cut-off date (31

December 1998) and prior to the plaintiffs’ acquisition of

the properties in question in February 1999.

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.2 The claims lodged were in respect of various rights in land,

which included amongst others, rights of communal or

traditional ownership and/or beneficial occupation and/or

labour tenants’ interests in land.

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.3 Do the plaintiffs admit that a claim in terms of the

Restitution of Land Rights Act 22 of 1994 is defined as any

 8 p26
Pff anxs
PRB 5
claim for restitution of a right in land lodged with the

Commission in terms of the Act?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.4 Do the plaintiffs admit that a right in land means any right

in land, whether registered or unregistered, and may

include the interest of the labour tenant and sharecropper,

a customary law interest, the interest of a beneficiary under

trust arrangement and beneficial occupation for a period of

not less than 10 (ten) years prior to the dispossession in

question?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.5 Do the plaintiffs admit that in terms of the Restitution of

Land Rights Act 22 of 1994, a person is entitled to

restitution of a right in land?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.6 Do the plaintiffs admit that whatever rights in land

claimants may have had, claimants would be entitled to

restitution of their rights in land if their claims become

successful?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

 9 p27
Pff anxs

10.1.2.7
PRB 5
Do the plaintiffs admit that at the time of acquisition of the

properties, there always existed a real possibility that

claimants may be restored their right in land, i.e. if their

claim is found to be successful?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.2.8 If the plaintiffs admit that there always existed a possibility

that the claimants may be restored their rights in land, then

in that event, the plaintiffs are required to state the basis

upon which it is alleged that the land claims were the

reasons why the plaintiffs were, amongst others, forced to

sell their properties to Dubai World.

Plaintiffs’ answer: ______________________________

10.1.3 At paragraph 22 of the plaintiffs’ answer to the defendants’ list of

admissions and enquiries, the following is stated:-

“The Plaintiffs do not admit that the land claims in respect of the

various farms including the farms subsequently acquired by the

Plaintiffs were lodged in the prescribed manner and were not

precluded by the provisions of Section 2 of the Act. The Plaintiffs

have never seen the original land claim forms and according to

the evidence, these claims have been properly vetted and

verified.”
 10 p28
Pff anxs
PRB 5
With reference to the above and with reference to the testimony

of Richard Spoor, the defendants enquire if the plaintiffs still

persist with the contentions set out in paragraph 22 of the

plaintiffs’ response to the defendants’ list of admission?

Plaintiffs’ answer: ___________________________________

11 In addition, and on behalf of the MTPA defendants, the following responses are

supplied and the following questions are posed, which the plaintiffs are free to

answer or not, as the plaintiffs see fit:-

The 1st, 4th-, 7th-, 10th-, 13th- and 23rd defendants’ response to the plaintiffs ‘with

prejudice’ proposals

Ad paragraph 1

11.1 It is denied that the aforementioned defendants either intentionally,

deliberately and/or maliciously caused any harm to the plaintiffs’ alleged

rights and interests by any alleged wrongful and/or unlawful means,

alternatively, that the aforementioned defendants breached any of their

alleged legal duties at any given time.

11.2 It is further denied that the aforementioned defendants had at any stage

acted with any improper and/or ulterior motives and/or that they ever

involved themselves in any alleged unlawful activities as claimed by the

plaintiffs.

Ad paragraph 2.1
 11 p29
Pff anxs

11.3
PRB 5
The aforementioned defendants note that the plaintiffs, and more

specifically the 11th plaintiff, owned properties and attempted to pursue

a project to develop. It is specifically denied that the plaintiffs can claim

on any basis at all that they would have earned any income and/or profit

and/or substantial income and/or profit from the project.

Ad paragraph 2.2

11.4 It is denied that the aforementioned defendants were involved in any

alleged wrongful acts over any period of time. The aforementioned

defendants further deny that they were involved in any administrative

frustration of applications and/or permissions, or that they published any

malicious falsehoods, or that they allegedly arranged any fraudulent

transactions and/or attempted to unlawfully confiscate animals for resale

and/or that they in any way undermined any of the plaintiffs’ alleged

attempts to obtain justice.

11.5 It is denied that the aforementioned defendants acted with any common

purpose and/or that they formed any conspiracy with any other party to

be involved in any unlawful activities.

11.6 It is denied by the aforementioned defendants that they were in any way

involved with any issues and/or claims with reference to any alleged land

claims.

11.7 It is specifically denied by the aforementioned defendants that they were

involved in any manner whatsoever to drive the plaintiffs off their land
 12 p30
Pff anxs
PRB 5
and/or that they allegedly forced the plaintiffs to abandon their project

and/or to sell their rights to any third party.

11.8 It is further specifically denied by the aforementioned defendants that

they caused the plaintiffs any financial loss and/or that the plaintiffs can

claim and/or prove that there is any causal link between their alleged

conduct and/or any alleged damages, which the plaintiffs claim they may

have or could have suffered.

11.9 It is denied by the aforementioned defendants that they acted with any

improper or ulterior motive at any point in time as alleged by the plaintiffs

in paragraphs 2.7.

11.10 The 1st, 4th-, 7th-, 10th-, 13th- and 23rd defendants’ require from the plaintiffs

an admission that:-

11.10.1 none of the aforementioned defendants acted in any unlawful or

improper manner at any time;

11.10.2 the aforementioned defendants ever received a fully completed

and compliant application in the prescribed form which complied

with the national norms, standards and policies and relevant and

applicable legislation for the issuing of permits for either lion

and/or elephant from any of the plaintiffs during the period 1999

to 13 June 2008;
 13 p31
Pff anxs

11.10.3
PRB 5
the aforementioned defendants were not in any way involved with

the activities referred to in paragraphs 2.1 to 2.6 of the ‘with

prejudice’ proposal;

11.10.4 none of the aforementioned defendants ever breached any

alleged duty of care in the conduct of their job description;

11.10.5 the 10th defendant (Jan Muller) at all relevant times acted lawfully

and in accordance with his job description when any application

for a permit was submitted to the permit office of the MTPA, and

duly granted all permits which were correctly and fully completed

and requested in the correct prescribed form which complied with

all the national norms, standards and policies and relevant and

applicable legislation;

11.10.6 the MTPA lawfully and transparently managed an Animal

Problem Fund, which was at all relevant time since 1999 in

existence and approved by the Board of MTPA and which resort

under the control of the Board and Treasury division of MTPA as

from 1999 up to date hereof;

11.10.7 Mr Dons Claassens of Tua Conserva never submitted a signed

comprehensive and completed application in the prescribed form

and according to the national norms, standards and policies and

relevant and applicable legislation for either lion or elephant on

behalf of the plaintiffs to the MTPA at any time up to 13 June 2008;

 14 p32
Pff anxs

11.10.8
PRB 5
Mr Dons Claassens of Tua Conserva never submitted any signed

supplementary application in the prescribed form and according

to the national norms, standards and policies and relevant and

applicable legislation for a permit to be issued in respect of lion or

elephant to the MTPA at any time up to 13 June 2008

11.10.9 Mr Dons Claassens of Tua Conserva never applied or submitted

a signed application for a rehabilitation centre permit in the

prescribed form and according to the national norms, standards

and policies and relevant and applicable legislation on behalf of

the plaintiffs to the MTPA before 13 June 2008;

11.10.10 the plaintiffs never submitted a comprehensive and completed

signed application for rehabilitation permit in the prescribed form

and according to the terms of the National Norms and Standards

and Policies and relevant Legislation to the MTPA before 13 June

2008;

11.10.11 the plaintiffs sold the entire ranch and/or resort and all the

properties to Dubai World on 17 March 2008, with the effective

date being 13 June 2008;

11.10.12 as from 13 June 2008 the plaintiffs, and more specifically the 11th

plaintiff (Mr Fred Daniel), did not have any further authority and/or

locus standi to be involved in the affairs of the game reserve and

properties and assets which were sold to Dubai World;

 15 p33
Pff anxs

11.10.13
PRB 5
after 13 June 2008 the plaintiffs, and more specifically the 11th

plaintiff (Mr Fred Daniel), had no financial interest in the game

reserve anymore;

11.10.14 the alleged traversing rights claimed by the 11th plaintiff (Mr Fred

Daniel) only incorporate for him to be allowed to traverse from the

main road over portions of the reserve to the 2,5ha plot which he

retained;

11.10.15 the so-called barrier fence which was claimed to have been

erected sometime after November 2009 by Dubai World, is totally

irrelevant to the plaintiffs’ cause of action as pleaded in his

particulars of claim as amended;

11.10.16 any alleged damage caused by the elephants to the vegetation or

trees of the property owned by Dubai World after 13 June 2008

with regard to the roaming of elephant, is totally irrelevant to the

plaintiffs’ cause of action as pleaded in the particulars of claim as

finally amended;

11.10.17 the plaintiffs, more specifically the 11th plaintiff (Mr Fred Daniel),

never exposed and/or cause the closing down of the so-called

Problem Animal Fund as transparently managed by the Board

and Treasury division of the MTPA since it inceprion;

11.10.18 none of the aforementioned defendants or any other member of

the MTPA were ever involved in any unlawful conduct, an alleged

 16 p34
Pff anxs
PRB 5
common purpose and/or conspiracies with anyone relating to

alleged land claims;

11.10.19 none of the aforementioned defendants were ever involved in any

unlawful and/or conspiracy relationship with Dubai World and/or

any of the latter’s directors at any stage between the period 1999

to 13 June 2008 to force the plaintiffs to vacate the properties or

to sell it to Dubai World.

12 With regard to the balance of the questions, the plaintiffs are asked to admit or

deny the following further questions:-

12.1 With regard to paragraph 10, the question of a ‘with prejudice’ virtual

meeting in the middle of a trial to be provided to the court is for the

aforesaid reasons unheard of and was declined. The written responses

referred to in the proposals document referred to above, comprise the

response.

12.2 With regard to paragraph 12, the defendants do not understand what the

reference to “final report” in this context means.

12.3 In paragraph 12 it is factually incorrectly suggested by the plaintiffs that

“the hearing will resume (as directed) at 10h00 on Wednesday 31 August

2022”. The judge did call for a further meeting of the parties by that date

and time, but he has indicated unequivocally, and made a ruling that the

case is postponed sine die. It is therefore so that a meeting will be held

 17 p35
Pff anxs
PRB 5
with the judge on that date and time, but it will not be the resumed

hearing of the trial, which was as indicated, postponed sine die.

Regards

MR NELSON GOVENDER

FOR: STATE ATTORNEY PRETORIA

 Pff anxs p36
PC Lessing/hn/G103

4051/7551/10/Z61
PRB 6
29 August 2022 Case Number 34502/2010

THE STATE ATTORNEY

SALU BUILDING
316 THABO SEHUME ST,
PRETORIA CENTRAL,
PRETORIA
ATTENTION: MR GOVENDER
BY EMAIL: NeGovender@justice.gov.za
Ngovender1970@gmail.com

Dear Mr Govender

IN RE: GRAND VALLEY ESTATES & 11 OTHERS // MTPA & 24 OTHERS // CASE NUMBER
34502/2010

1. We refer to you letter of today’s date received shortly before 11.00 and are instructed to
respond as follows:

Ad para 1 to 4

2. There is no need to argue about what was said, the record is clear. Without prejudice
discussions would be futile and a waste, as it has invariably been before.

Ad para 5

3. We know that application and trial proceedings are different but contend that in the special
circumstances of this trial and the history of defendants’ obstructiveness and causing of
delays, the plaintiffs’ proposals were appropriate and would lead to an effective limiting of
issues as required by the court.

Directors
Edwin du Plessis B.PROC. LLM Dip AIPSA (UP) Adv Cert BR (Unisa) 14 Spantou Avenue PO Box 12200
Philip Lessing BLC LLB LLM Dip AIPSA (UP) Adv Cert BR (Unisa) Wapadrand, Pretoria Hatfield 0028

Associates Tel: +27 (012) 807 4025

Johann Brits B.PROC. LLB (UNISA) Fax: +27 (012) 807 4032

Candidate attorneys
Francois van Niekerk e-mail: general@dlbm.co.za Reg. number: 99 / 14933 / 21
Divan van Zyl B.Com Law (NWU) LLB (NWU) www.dlbmattorneys.co.za VAT Number: 4200194928
Ad para 6 Pff anxs p37
PRB 6
4. The requests were appropriate under the prevailing circumstances.

Ad para 7

5. We asked for responses, not to the transcripts, but to the facts relied on by the plaintiffs as
set out in the transcripts and other documents.

6. Despite the use of phrases such as “unheard of”, the proposals were quite fair and
appropriate under the circumstances where there was a need to curb the ongoing abuse of
process by the defendants.

7. Those documents merely serve to make it clear to defendants the exact facts relied on by
plaintiffs, so that they can identify and list any contrary facts as requested.

Ad para 8

8. We disagree. Of course, the court can resume the hearing for purposes of report back and
for such directives the trial judge deems fit, including that the trial runs until Friday, 2
September 2022. Furthermore, in consultation with the Judge President, he can arrange for
the trial to be set down for a further period.

9. The defendants have not answered the plaintiffs’ two separate requests for admissions dated
1 August 2022.

Ad para 9 and 10

10. The only land rights that might have been regarded as valid claims were as reported by
Professor Delius.

11. The plaintiffs decline to admit or deny the questions of law. Only facts can be admitted or
denied.

12. There was no possibility of claimants being restored to land, save to the limited extent as
reported by the defendants’ expert Prof Delius.
 13. Plaintiffs persist with their allegation that none of the claims were in any event properly
Pff anxsvetted
p38
or verified.
PRB 6
Ad Para 11

14. None of the requested admissions are made.

Ad para 12.1 to 12.2

15. These paragraphs do not contain requests for admissions, and none are made.

Ad para 12.3

16. The purpose of saying that the “hearing will resume” was that such resumed hearing would
be for the purpose of report back and such directives the trial judge deems fit, including that
the trial runs until Friday, 2 September 2022.

17. Kindly note that we are instructed to request the trial judge’s registrar to reconvene the trial
for 10h00 tomorrow to report back to him as he had directed.

Yours faithfully
DLBM Inc Attorneys
[Electronically signed]
 Pff anxs p39
PRB 7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA

CASE NO: 34502/2010

In the matter between:

GRAND VALLEY ESTATES (PTY) LTD 1ST PLAINTIFF

AND 11 OTHERS 2ND TO 12TH PLAINTIFFS

and

MPUMALANGA TOURISM AND PARKS AGENCY 1ST DEFENDANT

AND 24 OTHERS 2ND TO 25TH DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS' WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

1 The defendants have failed, more than three months after Molefe J, the judicial
case manager postponed the above case sine die, to comply with the following
directives:

1.1 To provide the witnesses' names, they intend to call in support of their
special pleas.

1.2 To admit or deny the identities of the plaintiffs referred to in paragraphs

1 - 12 of the POC;

1.3 To admit or deny the description of the properties referred to in

paragraphs 41 - 42 of the POC;

Page 1 of 11

 Pff anxs p40

1.4
PRB 7
To approve the draft minutes of the case management meetings of 1, 22,
and 27 July 2020;

1.5 To instruct their expert, Dr. Anderson, to cooperate with the plaintiffs'
Professor van Hoven to prepare their expert joint minute.

2 The plaintiffs respectfully seek that the defendants immediately comply with the
above outstanding directives.

3 In light of the facts and circumstances set out herein below, the plaintiffs request
the following:

3.1 The re-enrolment of the trial on a preferential basis for 10 or 15 days in

the first term of 2021;

3.2 A directive that the parties deliver witness summaries by 30 November

2020 of the broad terms and nature of their witnesses' evidence.[1]

4 The plaintiffs sued various Mpumalanga government entities, their employees,

and the MEC for Land Affairs and Agriculture in 2010 for damages suffered due
to corruption-related harassment in Mpumalanga.

5 The first defendant is the Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Authority, and the
fourth defendant is the Mpumalanga Regional Land Claim Commission.

6 The seventh defendant is the Mpumalanga MEC for Land Affairs and Agriculture.
He is also cited as a nominal defendant by virtue of Section 2 of the State Liability
Act No. 20 of 1957.

7 The alleged harassment escalated during Mr. David Dabede Mabuza's tenure as
MEC for Land Affairs and Agriculture.

8 Mr. Vusi Shongwe is the current MEC.

Page 2 of 11

 Pff anxs p41

9
PRB 7
Mr. Mabuza is the current Deputy President of South Africa and has sworn to
obey, observe, uphold, and maintain the Constitution and all other laws of the
Republic.

10 Andre Ferreira SC until May 2020 represented Mr. Mabuza's interests in the
litigation, even though Mr. Mabuza is only a witness for the seventh defendant.
His tenure as the MEC in Mpumalanga ended in 2009.

11 The plaintiffs addressed a letter to DJP Ledwaba on 1 August 2018 to request a

judicial case manager's appointment and a special allocation of trial dates.

12 On 11 December 2018, during a meeting with the appointed judicial case

manager, Molefe J, it was agreed by the parties and certified that:

12.1 The merits and quantum to be adjudicated separately;

12.2 The matter was trial-ready for allocation of a preferential trial date by
the Deputy Judge President; [2] & [3]

12.3 The estimated trial duration was 25 days;[4]

13 On 28 May 2019, acting DJP Raulinga confirmed that there were no

outstanding issues-the matter was therefore trial ready;[5]

14 DJP Raulinga accordingly specially allocated the preferential trial dates for 27
July to 28 August 2020.[7]

15 The defendants, including the seventh defendant, raised no concerns that the
trial's political magnitude could derail the trial readiness.

Page 3 of 11

 Pff anxs p42

16
PRB 7
On 18 February 2020, the DJP issued a directive to reinstate judicial case-
management under Molefe J and appointed her as the trial judge.[8]

17 High court trials are expensive, and the plaintiffs, as self-funded litigants,
requested judicial case-management under Rule 37 (8) (a) to further curtail the
costs and duration of the 25-day trial.

18 The plaintiffs did not apply for further judicial case management because they
had any doubts about the estimated duration of the 25-day trial.

19 At the above meeting, Ferreira informed everyone present that Hellens SC

instructed by Ian Small-Smith would replace him as the Deputy President’s
senior counsel.

20 Seven days later, the first, fourth, and seventh defendants initiated
interlocutory proceedings on 25 February 2020 to compel discovery of a
confidential document they had known for years, were in the plaintiffs'
possession.

21 In doing as above, they did not heed the DJP's directive to participate in judicial
case management.

22 The defendants threatened that the confidential document would dispose of

the entire claim and result in a crippling punitive cost order against the
plaintiffs, who are self-funded litigants.

23 Nothing came from the threat after the plaintiffs discovered the confidential
agreement to avoid a further delay of justice caused by interlocutory
proceedings.

Page 4 of 11

 Pff anxs p43

24
PRB 7
The seventh defendants' new senior and junior counsel, and senior and junior
counsel for the other defendants on the eve of the 25-day high court trial
continued their strategy to engineer a postponement of the trial.

25 On 15 May 2020, the first, fourth, and seventh defendants once again did not
heed the DJP's directive to participate in judicial case-management and
served a 108-page Request for Further Particulars on the plaintiffs.

26 After a herculean effort during the worst pandemic in living memory and on 25
June 2020, the plaintiffs answered the request for further particulars
comprehensively to avoid disruptive and costly interlocutory proceedings.

27 On 1 July 2020, the parties met Molefe J at a judicial case-management

meeting on Microsoft Teams. She raised the possibility of the trial being run
virtually and proposed that the parties' experts meet to shorten the trial
duration.

28 On 18 July 2020, the state attorney, copying in Molefe J, wrote to the plaintiffs'
attorney, specifically on behalf of the seventh defendant, to:

28.1 Warn he would likely appeal any decision for a trial of this "magnitude"
conducted virtually, as proposed by Molefe J; and

28.2 Say he saw no reason for the parties' experts to meet for joint minutes
because they deal with separate issues.

29 On 20 July 2020, the seventh defendant discovered his leadership position in

land reform and restitution in the presidency's office.

Page 5 of 11

 Pff anxs p44
PRB 7
30 He did so even though he is not cited in his current capacity as Deputy
President of South Africa.

31 The state attorney's letter of 18 July 2020 and the Deputy President's
discovery on 20 July 2020 aimed to persuade Molefe J and the plaintiffs to
accept that the specially allocated trial would not proceed.

32 To pile further pressure on the plaintiffs, the seventh defendant served a Rule
28 (1) Notice of Amendment on the plaintiffs on 22 July 2020, on the eve of
the trial.

33 The Notice sought to withdraw an admission that puts the seventh defendant
at the center of land claim corruption—an admission he had made as long ago
as 4 December 2017.

34 To avoid any further delay caused by interlocutory proceedings, the plaintiffs

have withdrawn their objection to the above Notice of Amendment.

35 The eight defendants on 20 July 2020 served a Rule 28 (1) Notice of

Amendment on the plaintiffs, including an entirely new special plea of non-
joinder;

36 The timing of the above Notice on the eve of a specially allocated high court
trial speaks volumes.

37 The plaintiffs filed an affidavit opposing the above Rule 28 Notice on 2

September 2020. The eight's defendant two months later has taken no further
steps to prosecute the Notice.

38 During the judicial case management on 22 July 2020, the seventh defendant
complained that heinous allegations of land claim corruption would require
weeks of cross-examination.

Page 6 of 11

 Pff anxs p45

39
PRB 7
The plaintiffs objected to the characterization of their allegations as heinous.
The seventh defendant warned that Molefe J might face a recusal application
if she strayed into the case's merits.

40 The so-called heinous allegations of land claim corruption are in any event
found in the fourth defendants' own and long-hidden forensic reports.

41 The seventh defendant claimed at the meeting on 22 July 2020 that the parties'
experts disagree over the rights of South Africans who had been dispossessed
under Apartheid.

42 However, the seventh defendant knows that the plaintiffs agree with Professor
Delius's report concerning land claims' validity.

43 A joint expert minute by Professor Delius and the plaintiffs' historian, Professor
Tempelhoff, dispelled the narrative that disagreement existed between the two
experts.

44 There is no dispute over land claims and historical facts. The disagreement is
over land claim corruption and the continued efforts to conceal the truth.

45 Following the above conduct at the meeting of 22 July 2020 by the seventh
defendant, Molefe J intimated that the specially allocated trial might not go
ahead.

46 She was concerned about the number of witnesses the parties intended to call,
and she did not want a part-heard.

47 The defendants did not have any such concern when Molefe J certified the
case trial-ready on 11 December 2018 and agreed on 25 days.

48 Molefe J directed the parties to meet privately on 24 July 2020 to see if they
can reduce the number of witnesses by seeking admissions from each other.

Page 7 of 11

 Pff anxs p46

49
PRB 7
She offered to assist the parties during the first week of the trial if they could
not make progress on 24 July 2020.

50 The plaintiffs took comfort in Molefe J's above offer because case
management in the presence of a judge provided by Rule 37 (8) (a) would
make it difficult for the defendants to pretend that they have credible evidence
to gainsay the evidence of plaintiffs.

51 The next day, however, and before the private meeting directed by Molefe J
took place on 24 July 2020, the state attorney sent a letter to Molefe J. He
demonstrated that his clients had no appetite for judicial case management.

52 In the letter dated 23 July 2020, the state attorney accordingly expanded his
clients' witness list and threatened that if the plaintiffs reduced their witness
list, they would consider adding plaintiffs' witnesses to their list.

53 The seventh and other defendants defied Molefe J's proposal for the parties to
meet and in good faith to reduce the number of witnesses.

54 In response to the above letter, the plaintiffs sent a letter during the morning
of 24 July 2020 to complain to Molefe J about the defendants' bad faith.

55 A copy of this letter is enclosed marked Annexure "A."

56 The seventh respondent responded to the letter at the meeting on 24 July 2020
likening it to a schoolboy letter sent to a schoolmistress.

57 Ferreira told the plaintiffs at the same meeting that his clients will not consider
making any admissions even if they had to send someone to break his fingers.

58 Ferreira also declined to respond to the plaintiffs' question if the fourth

defendant admits its forensic reports on land claim corruption.

Page 8 of 11

 Pff anxs p47

59
PRB 7
Instead, he referred the question to the seventh defendant's counsel, who
answered that the report was irrelevant and that the seventh defendant was
unwilling to admit the report.

60 It took a directive by Molefe J on 27 July 2020 for the defendants to allow the
experts to speak to each other, contrary to the specific instructions in the state
attorney's letter of 18 July 2020 that the experts do not need to meet.

61 In less than a week, Molefe J's directive for joint expert minutes obviated the
need for the testimonies of Professors Delius, Tempelhoff, Dr. Bool Smuts,
and Dr. Du Plessis. It means that altogether four expert witnesses no longer
have to testify at the trial.

62 However, a voice note transcript shows that on 31 July 2020, minutes after the
case was postponed sine die by Molefe J, Dr. Du Plessis was instructed by the
defendants to withdraw the joint minute he and Dr. Bool had signed.

63 Similarly, Dr. Anderson, the defendants' expert, was told by the defendants not
to cooperate with the plaintiffs' expert, Professor van Hoven and prepare a
joint minute.

64 Expert evidence's curtailment remains a considerable achievement by the

experts and explains why the plaintiffs now believe only between 10 and 15
days are necessary for the trial.

65 The defendants' list of witnesses has always been a bone of contention

because the plaintiffs believe that they inflated their witness list from the outset.

66 The first, fourth, and seventh defendants have never explained how, according
to them, a 25-day trial could mushroom into a 50-day trial, immediately after
the seventh defendant briefed his new senior counsel.

67 On 31 July 2020, after seeing no indication that the parties were able to curtail
the trial's duration, Molefe J postponed the case sine die.

Page 9 of 11

 Pff anxs p48
PRB 7
68 The plaintiffs reserved the right to ask for the wasted cost of the postponement
of the trial.

69 On 8 September 2020, the plaintiffs took the unprecedented step to withdraw

and tender costs against 10 of the 25 defendants to remove any further doubts
about the trial's duration.

70 The first and fourth defendants violate Section 7 (2) of the Constitution in that
they as organs of state are delaying justice and undermining the plaintiffs'
Section 34 rights.

71 The plaintiffs at the end of the trial have been advised to bring an application
under Rule 37 (9) (a) (ii) for special cost orders against the organs of state
defendants, their decision-makers, and respective legal representatives.[10]

72 The basis of the application will be their failure to "in a material degree promote
the effective disposal of the litigation" during the case management process
as is prescribed by Rule 37 (9) (a) (ii).

_______________________
Advocate Jacques Joubert
9 November 2020

Page 10 of 11

 Pff anxs p49

[1]
PRB 7
As envisaged by paragraph 8.1.4 of the Judge President's Practice Directive 2 of 2019.
[2] Para 6.1 of the minutes of the CMM of 11 December 2018.
[3] Para 6.2 of the minutes of the above CMM.
[4] Para 7 of the minutes of the above CMM.
[5] Para 19 of the minutes of the CMM of 28 May 2019.
[7] Para 21 of the minutes of the above CMM.
[8] Para 2 of the minutes of the CMM of 18 February 2020.
[9] Para 2 of the minutes of the above CMM.
[10] As envisaged by paragraph 4 of the Judge President's Practice Directive 2 of 2019.

Page 11 of 11