23 • • • • • • the chiefs or the land allocating authority. Therefore, in that case, the Mokoena family lost the right to be considered for reallocation of the land. The 3rd respondent’s hands were not tied in any way in reallocating the land. The court held that the basis of the applicant’s claim could not be the law of succession. The court explained, if the 1st respondent had no rights to the land because it was lost by the deceased, even the Mokoena family had no rights to the land. However, that did not dispose of the dispute. The court held that if the applicant approached the matter from a citizenship angle, he would have no land title to claim as loss of rights to the land took place nine years before the deceased died. The court held that in relation to the rights of a widow, there were areas of unfair treatment in law as recognized under section 18(4)(b) of the Constitution. For example, even though a widow was not her husband’s successor, she could not be evicted from her husband’s house. She had to remain on her husband’s land and live on its produce until she died. The court noted that the land allocating authority’s discretion to allocate land was governed by the needs of the village and the court could not interfere with the use of that power unless it was contrary to the law or an established principle of equity. The court held that the power to allocate land rested in the chief and the land allocation committee. If the deceased lost his right to hold land, he had to be called during his lifetime in accordance with section 13 of the Land Act 1979 and only then would the land allocation authority invalidate his rights to the land. Further, the court held that if the land had been returned to the State, the land allocating authority was free to allocate it as it saw fit. example, even though a widow was not her The court concluded that it was wrong for the applicant For husband’s successor, she could not be evicted nd rd to invite the court to interfere with the 2 and 3 from her husband’s house. She had to remain respondent’s power to cancel the deceased’s title to land on her husband’s land and live on its produce until she died. as the court had no power to do so. Before the deceased’s land title could be cancelled the court held, that he had to be afforded a hearing under section 13 of the Land Act 1979. Unreasonable cancellations of land were not permitted by the law. The matter was not a succession claim and the applicant, if his own arguments were considered, could not claim a right to re-allocation. The court held that the land allocating authority had a free hand in allocating the land and the court could not interfere with its discretion. CITIZENSHIP AND NATIONALITY RIGHTS CASE DIGEST