Basotho Tribal Authority and Others v Matsipa and Another (1314/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 19 (23 February 2021)

Basotho Tribal Authority and Others v Matsipa and Another (1314/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 19 (23 February 2021)

The applicants failed to establish locus standi as they were neither owners nor persons in charge of the land under PIE, nor recognised traditional leaders under the relevant legislation. The Basotho Tribal Authority was not shown to have been transformed into a traditional council as required by statute, and the sub-headman lacked statutory recognition. The applicants did not demonstrate any legal interest or right to institute eviction proceedings. Furthermore, there was a material dispute of fact regarding the boundaries and use of the land, which the applicants foresaw but did not address through oral evidence. The application was brought on an urgent basis despite a 14-year delay,...

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Basotho Tribal Authority; Applicant: Chief Manase Nkopane (substituted by Siquluba Nkopane); Applicant: Thabo Tsemane; Applicant: Aubrey Mofama; Respondent: Thabiso Matsipa; Respondent: Senqu Local Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2021
Case Number
1314/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Interdict, Heard and Decided on the Papers
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Notyesi
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Eviction Proceedings, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Traditional Leadership, Spoliation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Locus Standi Eviction Proceedings Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Traditional Leadership Spoliation

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Basotho Tribal Authority

Applicant

Chief Manase Nkopane (substituted by Siquluba Nkopane)

Applicant

Thabo Tsemane

Applicant

Aubrey Mofama

Applicant

Thabiso Matsipa

Respondent

Senqu Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Interdict, Heard and Decided on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have locus standi to institute eviction proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have made out a case for eviction and interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish locus standi as they were neither owners nor persons in charge of the land under PIE, nor recognised traditional leaders under the relevant legislation. The Basotho Tribal Authority was not shown to have been transformed into a traditional council as required by statute, and the sub-headman lacked statutory recognition. The applicants did not demonstrate any legal interest or right to institute eviction proceedings. Furthermore, there was a material dispute of fact regarding the boundaries and use of the land, which the applicants foresaw but did not address through oral evidence. The application was brought on an urgent basis despite a 14-year delay,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi granted on 3 July 2020 is discharged.
  • The application is dismissed with costs, including all reserved costs, to be paid by the second, third and fourth applicants jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.