In November 2022, Judge Baartman issued findings regarding a recission application against High Commissioner Tauriq Jenkins in the River Club case. The application, from a group of individuals who claimed to be the authentic representatives of the Goringhaicona Khoi Khoin Indigenous Traditional Council (GKKITC) sought to assert falsely that High Commissioner Jenkins did not have the authority to represent the GKKITC. Being unrepresented in court and unable to use a detailed affidavit disputing the application because the affidavit was submitted late, Tauriq Jenkins was unable to mount a legal defence against the claim.  As a result, these misrepresentations presented in the recission application went unchallenged.  On the basis of these unchallenged claims, Judge Baartman, with two other judges, found that Tauriq Jenkins had misled the court, did not have the right to represent the GKKITC and was not an authentic leader of the GKKITC. 

We have previously shown that the application against Tauriq Jenkins was contrived to protect the developers from a contempt of court challenge and that the only fraud committed was the fraud against the GKKITC and against Tauriq Jenkins.  He was and still is the Senior High Commissioner for the GKKITC and was appropriately and legally authorised to hold power of attorney in the High Court Review by a formally adopted resolution of the GKKITC National Executive Council in July 2021. He holds wide support from different Khoi and San groups in opposing the development as can be seen in the image above.

His application for leave to appeal the November 2022 finding will be heard in the Cape High Court on Monday 17th April. His application argues, amongst other things, that:

a.      The explanations for the delay in submitting the affidavit were reasonable and it would have been in the interest of justice to admit his affidavit.

b.      No timetable had been agreed between parties for the conduct of the proceedings and the court should not have held he was late in submission.

c.       The failure to take into account relevant facts resulted in a violation of Commissioner Jenkins’ human rights and constitutional right of access to the courts.

d.      The court’s failure to exercise appropriate judicial discretion caused the application to be unopposed in circumstances where the findings and orders have wide-ranging and serious implications.

e.      There was no urgency to the recission application (which had been previously struck off the urgent register by Judge Fortuin in July 2022).

f.        The relief sought in the rescission application went well beyond an ordinary rescission application and relied on new facts put before the court that, had contrary evidence been permitted, would have resulted in disputes of fact needing to be resolved on oral evidence.

g.      The application by the group claiming to represent the GKKITC was not constitutionally grounded and that their resolution to authorise the recission application was not taken at a properly constituted meeting where affected parties would be given notice, as required by law.

In short, the group claiming to be the GKKITC have no standing to do so, and the recission outcome should be overturned.  The decision of the High Court denied High Commissioner Jenkins the right to a fair hearing.

If the High Court agree that there are grounds to appeal their decision, then the recission is suspended and the authentic GKKITC can continue to fight the case an applicant in the matter.

We hope the Cape High Court will understand that the decisions in November were misdirected and null in law; and that they will afford Tauriq Jenkins the opportunity to defend himself and re-establish the authority exercised by the GKKITC in challenging a development on a sacred floodplain that will generate economic benefits for some, whilst destroying a sensitive environmental site with national if not international heritage significance as a Ground Zero site of resistance by indigenous peoples to the earliest colonial oppression.

The Western Cape High court must still decide if the approvals by the City & Provincial offices were legal or not in the Review. To win this in Court, we really need your support. We cannot pursue this case and the campaign effectively with our hands tied economically behind our backs. Hence, we appeal to supporters of our campaign to support us financially to keep the case going. If everyone who has signed this petition contributed R20 or US$1, we would be in a much stronger position to fight this case fully. Please support us by contributing at our fundraising site. Any donation of any size will make a huge difference

Visit our website and follow the Liesbeek Action Campaign on twitter: @LiesbeekAction. 

Make the Liesbeek Matter!