Atkatrading 266 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Williams and Others (LANC32R/2024) [2024] ZALCC 46 (27 November 2024)

Atkatrading 266 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Williams and Others (LANC32R/2024) [2024] ZALCC 46 (27 November 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Mr. Williams' assertion of long-term residence on the farm, nor did they substantiate their claim that Ms. Coetzee was a seasonal worker. The respondents' denials were plausible and unambiguous. The applicants did not adequately...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZALCC 46
Parties
Applicant: Atkatrading 266 (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hoekstra Fruit Farms (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Barend Frederik Mouton; Respondent: Gabriel Williams; Respondent: Evie Coetzee; Respondent: All unknown persons residing with or under 1st to 2nd Respondents in the premises on Windmeul Farm, Paarl; Respondent: Drakenstein Municipality; Respondent: Provincial Director of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 November 2024
Case Number
LANC32R/2024
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order Under ESTA
Outcome
Application for eviction dismissed; magistrate's order set aside.
Judges
Mabasa
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Proceedings, Dispute of Fact, Motion Proceedings, Occupier Status
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Proceedings Dispute of Fact Motion Proceedings Occupier Status

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Atkatrading 266 (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hoekstra Fruit Farms (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Barend Frederik Mouton

Applicant

Gabriel Williams

Respondent

Evie Coetzee

Respondent

All unknown persons residing with or under 1st to 2nd Respondents in the premises on Windmeul Farm, Paarl

Respondent

Drakenstein Municipality

Respondent

Provincial Director of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents qualify as occupiers under section 10 or section 11 of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' right of residence was contingent solely on Mr. Otto's employment and ended upon his death.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's order for eviction was justified given the disputes of fact and absence of oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter Mr. Williams' assertion of long-term residence on the farm, nor did they substantiate their claim that Ms. Coetzee was a seasonal worker. The respondents' denials were plausible and unambiguous. The applicants did not adequately address the contingency of residence on Mr. Otto's employment, and no compelling evidence was presented to show the respondents' claims were implausible. Given the disputes of fact and the absence of oral evidence or referral to trial, the magistrate's order for eviction under section 11 of ESTA was not justified. The respondents' allegations could not be rejected on the papers,...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction dismissed; magistrate's order set aside.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.