21 October 2026 – Application weaponised

So at the Land Court, practitioners being deprived of their fees in Motilele community.

This was the case concerning the Maruleng Farms.

So back in May 2025, the Land Court dismissed a condemnation application brought in the name of the community and awarded attorney and client costs to the commission for the restitution of land rights.

Now, the court deferred determining who should ultimately bear those costs because it was uncertain whether the community as a whole or members of the Motilele Communal Property Association CPA committee had benefited from or authorized the litigation.

Now, the community's legal representatives were Gopi attorneys and advocate Noche and advocate Matlanga.

So, the CPA committee was the statutorily recognized organ for resolutions of the CPA, and the inquiry concerned the legal representatives.

It was not whether they should personally pay the successful party's costs, but whether they should be disentitled from recovering their own fees and disbursements because the condemnation application was spurious.

Now, earlier judgments had already warned against unnecessary and obstructive litigation which delayed restitution proceedings and prejudiced ordinary community members.

So the legal representatives had failed to heed those warnings.

The condemnation application was not a bona fide attempt to obtain forgiveness for non-compliance coupled with subsequent compliance.

It persisted in refusing to provide basic information which the court had repeatedly required and "...notwithstanding orders, case management discussions, and an undertaking given by a counsel in the attorney's presence.

The contention that an undertaking could be overlooked because the pretrial minute had not yet been prepared ignored the attorney's duty to maintain an accurate contemporaneous note or verify its terms.

The reasons advanced for non-compliance could not reasonably have originated with Chiluan or the claimant bodies alone." They arose from matters discussed at case management conferences and were formulated as legal arguments.

Instead of acknowledging default and complying, the legal team persisted in contending that the order was ultra-virus.

The condemnation application... had therefore been weaponized to excuse compliance altogether the practitioners owed duties to the proper administration of justice and to the court not to permit a spurious application which obstructed and delayed the restitution process now having been clearly warned that continued conduct of that kind would have consequences they were to be deprived of the relevant fees and disbursements.

So, in Group A attorneys, Notch SC and Madlanger were deprived of their respective fees and disbursements relating to conferences on certain dates and notices and the condemnation application and all court appearances concerning it.