Initially, the Makuleke community was self-sufficient, relying on the trade of ivory and the production of maize. In time, it also relied on limited and controlled migrant labour. In 1969, the apartheid government removed the Makuleke community to part of Gazankulu, to an empty area that had no infrastructure. They received no compensation. In 1996, the Makuleke community lodged a claim for restitution. The LRC assisted the Makuleke community in lodging a claim for approx 20, 000 hectares of land taken away from them by the apartheid government in 1969.The area comprises part of the Kruger National Park which is owned by the state. The following stakeholders had an interest in the claim by the Makuleke. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism was interested in preserving the Kruger National Park and avoiding precedent. The SANDF was interested in securing the country's border with Mozambique and Zimbabwe, protecting a local air force landing strip, and preventing influx of illegal migrants across bordersThe Department of Land Affairs was interested in satisfying the land claim. It was argued that it was not economical or feasible to move the Makuleke community back to their original area of occupation. In 1998 the LRC brokered a deal between the Makuleke and the South African National Parks (SANP), in which the Makuleke regained the rights of ownership to their land, but would not move back to their original area of occupation. Rather, the land would remain an integral part of the Kruger National Park. The Makuleke Community Property Association gained exclusive commercial rights to the Pafuri Triangle, which it would develop for tourist ventures. The Makuleke obtained commercial rights and joint management of the Pafuri section of the Kruger National Park. The community sold their hunting rights a safari company.

The Gathlose, Maremane and Khosis communities lodged claims in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act of 1994 to have their ancestral land at Lohatla restored to them. The three communities lived harmoniously together until they were forcibly removed in 1976. The Batswana families, being the Gathlose and Maremane, were removed 200kms away, as part of the government's attempts to consolidate Bophutatswana. The Khosis were allowed to remain temporarily by virtue of their status as coloureds. In 1978 the South African Defence Force took over Lohatla and established the P.W. Botha Military Training Camp. The land was quickly contaminated. When the SADF took occupation of the land, the Khosis community were given 14000 hectares of land within the battle school. The SADF wanted to complete the removal of people from the area and in the mid-1980s the Khosis community was offiered land and houses in four areas. The Khosis community refused to move. In 1992 the SADF approached them with another relocation scheme to Jenn-Haven. Some families relocated, but 38 families resisted removal. These families then experienced intense harassment and attempts at eviction. SADF instituted eviction proceedings against Khosis, but presented the matter as voluntary relocation. In 1993 3 communities lodged asubmission with the Advisory Commission for Land Allocation, claiming 74, 000 ha of the 135, 000 ha of the battle school, but were unsuccessful. In 1994 the communities entered into negotiations with the SANDF and the Department of Land Affairs. Negotiations were characterised by deadlocks and community protest and protracted legal battles. In 1997, the case was referred to the Land Claims Court, in order to decide whether Khosis were dispossessed at all and if yes, what would be the appropriate restitution. The collection consists of 5 volumes. Each volume represents a different legal battle over the restitution of land, particularly to the Khosis community.

In 1927 the farm Driefontein, in the Wakkerstroom district, was divided into 310 portions and these plots were held by black owners under freehold title. In 1973 it was decided by the South African government that the Driefontein community should be resettled because part of the area would be flooded by the Heyshope Dam. The LRC assisted the residents in the negotiations regarding the relocation of graves and where the residents would be resettled. These matters are recorded in 1.19.4.3. Maseko, M. Records contain a submission by the LRC on behalf of Driefontein residents regarding the proposed Tribal and Community Authority Bill disseminated to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid. The essence of the submission is that the Driefontein experience should be considered by government when making any constitutional decisions regarding communal leadership. The Driefontein Community did not recognise the leadership of the authorities the government believed should represent them. On this basis the LRC submitted that certain clauses of the proposed bill be amended to reflect that local authorities cannot be established until the local community has had a say in who will represent them. Also see 1.22.14.8.3. Mkhize, S (death).