Land Court Bill: finalisation of A-list

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

14 September 2022
Chairperson: Mr G Magwanishe (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

Video

The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development presented the latest working document on the Land Court Bill. It included amendments to the following clauses: Clause 8, which dealt with the appointment of judges to the Land Court; and clause 17, which dealt with appeals.

With clause 8, an amendment would be effected to clause 8(3) to include the words “who may have been judges of the High Court at the time they were appointed to the Court”. As a result of that amendment, there was a consequential amendment to the effect that clause 8(4), paragraph (a) would be deleted, and then paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) would become (a), (b) and (c).

With clause 17, a request was made by the Committee that it should be clarified that appeals from the Magistrates Court in applicable circumstances should be made to the Land Court (also referred to as “the Court”). The proposed new subclause 2 was the provision that the Committee looked at. Previously, clause 17 had only one paragraph. The proposal was to include subclause (1), which read:
Any person who is aggrieved by a judgement or order of a Magistrate’s Court may appeal to the Court against that judgement or order in accordance with –
(a) any land-related legislation conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Court; and
(b) the rules contemplated in section 32.

The inclusion in the proposed new subclause 2 was for purposes of clarity.

The Department also presented the A-list. It proposed that the Schedule to the Bill be rejected and replaced by an amended Schedule.

Members welcomed the A-list and thanked the drafting team for their hard work.

It was agreed that the following Tuesday, the Committee would be dealing with two bills, specifically voting on the B-version of the Land Court Bill and starting to process the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Bill.

 

Meeting report

The Chairperson stated that the Committee would be finalising the Land Court Bill today.

Apologies were noted.

The Chairperson requested the Department to present the A-list of the Bill.

Land Court Bill with the Portfolio Committee’s Amendments, 14 September 2022 (working document)

Mr Henk du Preez, Senior State Law Advisor, Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), presented. He shared two documents with the Committee: The first one showed where the amendments that were effected by the Committee the previous day (Tuesday) were included in the working document.

The amendments were in relation to the appointment of judges to the Land Court, where the amendments shown in the document were proposed. These were drafted in the Committee, i.e. an amendment would be effected to clause 8(3) to include the words “who may have been judges of the High Court at the time they were appointed to the Court”. As a result of that amendment, there was a consequential amendment to the effect that clause 8(4), paragraph (a) would be deleted, and then paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) would become (a), (b) and (c).

Mr du Preez asked if he should pause at this point.

The Chairperson said that Mr du Preez could proceed, and if any Member had an issue to raise, then they could raise their hand.

 

Mr du Preez proceeded.

With clause 17, a request was made by the Committee that it should be clarified that appeals from the Magistrates Court in applicable circumstances should be made to the Land Court (also referred to as “the Court”). The proposed new subclause 2 was the provision that the Committee looked at. Previously, clause 17 had only one paragraph. The proposal was to include subclause (1), which read:
Any person who is aggrieved by a judgement or order of a Magistrate’s Court may appeal to the Court against that judgement or order in accordance with –
(a) any land-related legislation conferring appellate jurisdiction on the Court; and
(b) the rules contemplated in section 32.

The inclusion in the proposed new subclause 2 was for purposes of clarity. Those were the only amendments proposed by the Committee the previous day. The Department had attempted to effect those amendments.

Mr du Preez returned to clause 8 to recap the proposals on that clause.

The Chairperson asked if there were any comments and if Members were happy.

There was no input and the Chairperson asked Mr du Preez to proceed with the A-list.

(See document)

Land Court Bill A-list

Mr du Preez presented. The document showed the yellow highlighted words that would be added to the A-list when it was submitted to the Committee for approval.

With clause 8, this provision has been added based on the Committee’s discussion the previous day.  


With Clause 17, the Department inserted the amendment discussed the previous day. The Committee had seen a previous draft of the A-list. As indicated by the Committee Secretary the previous day, the A-list must be formally approved by the Committee.

Mr du Preez recommended that if the Department’s working document is approved by the Committee, then it would be able to check, with more confidence, the draft A-list before approval by the Committee. Hopefully, the B-list as well. It might take some time unfortunately.


On the Schedule, Mr du Preez highlighted that the Department’s proposal on the A-list was that the Schedule should be rejected and replaced by an amended Schedule. Mr Makubela Mokulubete, State Law Advisor, DoJ&CD, had taken the Committee through the proposed amendments the previous day.

Dr W Newhoudt-Druchen (ANC) wanted to confirm that the Committee must reject the old Schedule, and accept the new Schedule.

Mr du Preez explained that the Department tried to make things easier for itself, because with an A-list, it was difficult to check all the proposed amendments. At that stage, the Department thought that it might be better just to simply reject the Schedule and replace it with a new Schedule. With the A-list, the important part was the correct reflection of those amendments in the B-version.

He then presented the long title and preamble, and also the arrangement of sections in the Bill. With the long title, the Department also raised issues the previous day that were highlighted in colour. He pointed out the insertion of the Magistrates Court, and the deletion of reference to the Land Court of Appeal.

With the preamble, there were not many amendments; those were mostly technical in nature. With the arrangement of sections, the Department recommended that the Committee accept that the arrangement of sections should be rejected, and then replaced with a new index to the Bill. Such a replacement also made things easier for everyone checking the A-list in comparison with the B-version.

The Chairperson asked if Members were happy with the presentation and accepted the A-list.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen accepted the A-list as it was. She thanked Mr du Preez, Mr Mokulubete and their team for all the hard work that had been done.

Mr W Horn (DA) thanked the Department for its patience and hard work. The DA would be reserving its position pending caucus deliberations. But that did not detract from the fact that the DA was appreciative of all of the efforts and the work of the Committee.

The Chairperson thanked the Department and said that the Committee did not take the Department’s work and expertise for granted. It made the Committee’s work easy to do since it was working with people who were experienced, highly skilled, and extremely dedicated. It was not easy for people to work on two bills at the same time. On behalf of South Africans, the Committee was very happy with the Department’s work and its professionalism.

The Chairperson confirmed with the Committee Secretary whether the B-version of the Bill would be ready for the Committee to adopt on Tuesday. On Tuesday, the Committee would be dealing with two bills, specifically voting on the B-version of the Land Court Bill and start to process the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Bill.

Adoption of Minutes

The Chairperson noted that the minutes were circulated and would be taken as read.

The Members who joined the meeting late were welcomed.

6 September 2022

A correction was made to Prof C Msimang’s (IFP) title.

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen asked if it should be “Magistrates and land courts”, or “Magistrate’s Court and land courts”.

Ms Christine Silkstone, Committee Content Advisor, said that she would check the Magistrates Act, and use that as a guide.

Ms Silkstone noted that the apostrophe should be removed from “Magistrates”.

Mr J Engelbrecht (DA) moved for the adoption of the minutes, and Dr Newhoudt-Druchen seconded.

7 September 2022

Mr X Nqola (ANC) moved for the adoption of the minutes, and Dr Newhoudt-Druchen seconded.

9 September 2022

Dr Newhoudt-Druchen moved for the adoption of the minutes, and Mr S Swart (ACDP) seconded.

Other Committee business

The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee still had to make a decision about the invitation that was sent to it through the Speaker's Office for the workshop that was going to take place the following week. The workshop had been moved to Tuesday. On Tuesday, the Committee would be finalising the Land Court Bill, and then dealing with the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Bill. With the latter, the Committee was working under immense pressure timewise. Thus, each day was very important, because the Bill had to go to the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) and give it enough time to process the Bill before 17 December 2022. The President needed to sign the Bill into law before that time, and the Committee knew that the implications of not finalising that Bill were “too huge”. The Chairperson proposed that Members write to the Speaker to say that they would not be available to attend that workshop because of the bills that were before the Committee, and the timeframes that it had to meet.

Members agreed with the suggestion.

Mr Vhonani Ramaano, Committee Secretary, confirmed that the Committee’s programme was open on Friday.

The Chairperson observed that the Committee could not call anybody on short notice to come and present, because it would be too disruptive. He suggested allowing the Committee Secretariat to use Friday to deal with the outstanding reports on the oversight visits to various provinces. The Committee would therefore not be meeting on Friday. The Committee would allow time for that work to be done, so that when it came back before it adjourned on 29 September, it could then deal with those reports and correct them. After correcting the reports, it would be prepared for a meeting with the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure.

Members agreed.

Adv Doctor Mashabane, Director-General, DoJ&CD, agreed.

The Chairperson wanted to say that the Committee was ably assisted by the members of the Department’s drafting unit. The Committee was “very happy”. The Committee would probably be concluding two bills the following week because of Mr du Preez and Mr Mokulubete’s hard work, and also because of Mr Sarel Robertse’s (State Law Advisor, DoJ&CD) work on the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Bill.

Adv Mashabane observed that the drafting unit worked under tremendous pressure and had capacity challenges. The National Treasury had cut resources, but the unit was doing its best under such circumstances.

The meeting was adjourned.

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: