Amfarms Realisation Company Limited and Others v Hontyi and Others, Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Claasen and Others; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Lufefe; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Williams and Others; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Klaase; Mfazo and Others v Amfarms Realisation Company Limited and Others (LCC76/05 , LCC77/05, LCC78/05 , LCC79/05, LCC80/05, LCC101/05) [2007] ZALCC 10 (20 June 2007)

Amfarms Realisation Company Limited and Others v Hontyi and Others, Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Claasen and Others; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Lufefe; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Williams and Others; Anglo American Farms Limited and Another v Klaase; Mfazo and Others v Amfarms Realisation Company Limited and Others (LCC76/05 , LCC77/05, LCC78/05 , LCC79/05, LCC80/05, LCC101/05) [2007] ZALCC 10 (20 June 2007)

The court found the applicants' explanations for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal wholly inadequate, with no proper account of prospects of success, importance of the matter, or prejudice. The delay was excessive and not justified. The application for leave to appeal was incompetent in respect of certain applicants who had already been evicted, were not subject to eviction orders, or had agreed to eviction orders. The arbitration clauses cited by applicants did not apply to the eviction proceedings, which were governed by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The court's jurisdiction could not be ousted by such clauses, and respondents had locus standi as...

Citation
[2007] ZALCC 10
Parties
Applicant: Amfarms Realisation Company Limited; Applicant: Anglo American Farms Limited; Applicant: Boschendal (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Mamalayikho Hontyi; Respondent: Lindele Matebese; Respondent: Nkosincedile Vikilahle; Respondent: Dyakophu Ntuse; Applicant: Alleé Bleue (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Danie Claasen; Respondent: Magdelene Simons; Respondent: Johanna George; Respondent: Patricia Zukulu; Respondent: Lena Claasen; Applicant: Rhodes Food Group (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Nosisile Josephina Lufefe; Applicant: Boschendal Limited; Respondent: Moos Williams; Respondent: Frederick Oosthuizen; Respondent: Koos de Jager; Applicant: Kovacs Investments 554 (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Klaas Klaase; Applicant: Mxolosi Moses Mfazo; Applicant: Lungile Sibanga; Applicant: Mayoyi Xuza; Applicant: Vukile Hem
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Case Number
LCC76/05 , LCC77/05, LCC78/05 , LCC79/05, LCC80/05, LCC101/05
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation
Outcome
Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Meer
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Condonation, Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court, Locus Standi, Arbitration Clauses, Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Condonation Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court Locus Standi Arbitration Clauses Extension of Security of Tenure Act

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amfarms Realisation Company Limited

Applicant

Anglo American Farms Limited

Applicant

Boschendal (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Mamalayikho Hontyi

Respondent

Lindele Matebese

Respondent

Nkosincedile Vikilahle

Respondent

Dyakophu Ntuse

Respondent

Alleé Bleue (Proprietary) Limited

Applicant

Danie Claasen

Respondent

Magdelene Simons

Respondent

Johanna George

Respondent

Patricia Zukulu

Respondent

Lena Claasen

Respondent

Rhodes Food Group (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Nosisile Josephina Lufefe

Respondent

Boschendal Limited

Applicant

Moos Williams

Respondent

Frederick Oosthuizen

Respondent

Koos de Jager

Respondent

Kovacs Investments 554 (Proprietary) Limited

Applicant

Klaas Klaase

Respondent

Mxolosi Moses Mfazo

Applicant

Lungile Sibanga

Applicant

Mayoyi Xuza

Applicant

Vukile Hem

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Condonation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal should be granted.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal is competent in respect of all applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Claims Court had jurisdiction to hear the eviction applications despite arbitration clauses.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicants' explanations for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal wholly inadequate, with no proper account of prospects of success, importance of the matter, or prejudice. The delay was excessive and not justified. The application for leave to appeal was incompetent in respect of certain applicants who had already been evicted, were not subject to eviction orders, or had agreed to eviction orders. The arbitration clauses cited by applicants did not apply to the eviction proceedings, which were governed by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The court's jurisdiction could not be ousted by such clauses, and respondents had locus standi as...

Court Disposition

Application for condonation and leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing of the application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • Application for leave to appeal is dismissed in respect of all applicants.