Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others (304/06) [2007] ZASCA 95; 2007 (6) SA 313 (SCA); 2007 (11) BCLR 1214 (SCA) (6 September 2007)

Barnett and Others v Minister of Land Affairs and Others (304/06) [2007] ZASCA 95; 2007 (6) SA 313 (SCA); 2007 (11) BCLR 1214 (SCA) (6 September 2007)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' occupation and construction of cottages on State land within the coastal conservation area was unlawful, as no valid consent or permit was obtained under the applicable statutory framework. The court found that the Government's claims were not prescribed, as the occupation constituted a continuous wrong, giving rise to ongoing actionable claims. The court rejected the appellants' reliance on informal rights and customary law, finding no evidence of a relevant custom or practice permitting non-residents to occupy the land. The court further held that PIE did not apply, as the cottages were not 'homes' within the meaning of the Act, but...

Citation
[2007] ZASCA 95
Parties
Appellant: David Sinclair Barnett; Appellant: Patricia Stephanie Canham NO; Appellant: Stephen Hugh Church; Appellant: Peter Clowes; Appellant: James Kevin Doveton; Appellant: Peter Goss; Appellant: Hilton Llewellyn Lane; Appellant: Ashton Henry Martin; Appellant: Richard Jeremy Reen; Appellant: Jacob John Rothman; Appellant: William Turton; Appellant: Edward Lawrence Barry; Appellant: Michael Beresford; Appellant: Bruce Dornleo; Appellant: R John Pickering; Appellant: Neville Danson Taylor; Respondent: Minister of Land Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry; Respondent: Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Eastern Cape Province
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2007
Case Number
304/06
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Granting Eviction and Demolition Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Brand, Howie, Jafta, Maya, Combrinck
Legal Topics
Coastal Conservation Area, Unlawful Occupation, Prescription Act, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Environmental Impact, Customary Law Permission
Land and Property Environmental Law Civil Procedure Coastal Conservation Area Unlawful Occupation Prescription Act Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Environmental Impact +1 more

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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Sinclair Barnett

Appellant

Patricia Stephanie Canham NO

Appellant

Stephen Hugh Church

Appellant

Peter Clowes

Appellant

James Kevin Doveton

Appellant

Peter Goss

Appellant

Hilton Llewellyn Lane

Appellant

Ashton Henry Martin

Appellant

Richard Jeremy Reen

Appellant

Jacob John Rothman

Appellant

William Turton

Appellant

Edward Lawrence Barry

Appellant

Michael Beresford

Appellant

Bruce Dornleo

Appellant

R John Pickering

Appellant

Neville Danson Taylor

Appellant

Minister of Land Affairs

Respondent

Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry

Respondent

Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council Responsible for Economic Affairs, Environment and Tourism, Eastern Cape Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Granting Eviction and Demolition Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' occupation and construction of cottages on State land within a coastal conservation area was lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the Government's claims for eviction and demolition were prescribed under the Prescription Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) applied to the appellants' occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants' occupation and construction of cottages on State land within the coastal conservation area was unlawful, as no valid consent or permit was obtained under the applicable statutory framework. The court found that the Government's claims were not prescribed, as the occupation constituted a continuous wrong, giving rise to ongoing actionable claims. The court rejected the appellants' reliance on informal rights and customary law, finding no evidence of a relevant custom or practice permitting non-residents to occupy the land. The court further held that PIE did not apply, as the cottages were not 'homes' within the meaning of the Act, but...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • The order of the High Court for eviction and demolition of structures stands.