traditional council areas, page-21

why did Bengwenyama not apply to Soupiana?

Did they have a consent and consultation from Roka Phasha?

why did they have to put a land claim in 2007 for Eerstegeluk, long after the land claims deadline - they never applied for land claim earlier---- then when they thought that they could have a second shot through 104 they moved a land court appeal---it appears this was done rather silently without letting the Roka Phasha know - The case is not even adjudicated. Bengwenyama claim that the Roka are squatters - thats not what Tubatse municipality thinks as evidenced by the maps.

so in summary when Bengwenyama submitted their initial application the community was so fragmented that they could not meet the requirements for a 104-and a 104 would have split down the shareholdings of interested parties. They gave it a shot through sec 16 MRPDA and lost to the applicant who convinced DMR that they had a single large holding, had community consent to most of their holdings, and had informed all parties of their intend to apply to propect albeit one was in disagreement