Blaines Property (Pty) Ltd and Others v Macevele and Others (045/2021) [2023] ZALMPTHC 14 (12 December 2023)

Blaines Property (Pty) Ltd and Others v Macevele and Others (045/2021) [2023] ZALMPTHC 14 (12 December 2023)

The court found that the applicants' PTO was valid as it was obtained through the proper legal channels, including approval by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, and covered the disputed portion of land. The first respondent's PTO was found to be invalid, having been granted after the applicants' PTO and lacking the necessary approvals from relevant state entities. The first respondent failed to comply with the prescribed procedure for obtaining a PTO and did not establish a lawful right to occupy the land. The court exercised its discretion to grant a declaratory order in favour of the applicants, confirming their PTO and ordering the ejectment of the first respondent...

Citation
[2023] ZALMPTHC 14
Parties
Applicant: Blaines Property (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Risinga Community Trust; Applicant: Mashangu Sophie Chauke N.O; Applicant: Mihloti Queen Mathebula N.O; Applicant: Maria Tinyiko Chabalala N.O; Applicant: Samuel Mokosana Mathebula N.O; Applicant: Hudson Makambeni N.O; Applicant: Giyane Godfrey Makamu N.O; Applicant: Tsundzukani Eunice Hlungwani N.O; Applicant: Seth Vukeya N.O; Applicant: Happy Samuel Nyambi N.O; Applicant: Livasi Vuthlari Mabasa N.O; Respondent: Phikani Solomon Macevele; Respondent: Mititi Traditional Council; Respondent: Limpopo Provincial Government: Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Collins Chabane Municipality; Respondent: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 December 2023
Case Number
045/2021
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicants; declaratory relief and ejectment ordered.
Judges
M S Monene
Legal Topics
Permission to Occupy, Bantu Areas Land Regulations, Declaratory Relief, Ejectment, Traditional Authority Land Allocation
Land and Property Administrative Law Permission to Occupy Bantu Areas Land Regulations Declaratory Relief Ejectment Traditional Authority Land Allocation

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blaines Property (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Risinga Community Trust

Applicant

Mashangu Sophie Chauke N.O

Applicant

Mihloti Queen Mathebula N.O

Applicant

Maria Tinyiko Chabalala N.O

Applicant

Samuel Mokosana Mathebula N.O

Applicant

Hudson Makambeni N.O

Applicant

Giyane Godfrey Makamu N.O

Applicant

Tsundzukani Eunice Hlungwani N.O

Applicant

Seth Vukeya N.O

Applicant

Happy Samuel Nyambi N.O

Applicant

Livasi Vuthlari Mabasa N.O

Applicant

Phikani Solomon Macevele

Respondent

Mititi Traditional Council

Respondent

Limpopo Provincial Government: Department of Co-operative Governance, Human Settlement and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Collins Chabane Municipality

Respondent

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Which Permission to Occupy (PTO) over portion 9 of the farm Plange 221LT is valid: the applicants' or the first respondent's.
  2. 2 Whether the PTO held by the first respondent should be nullified and the first respondent ejected from the land.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a declaratory order confirming their PTO and ejectment of the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' PTO was valid as it was obtained through the proper legal channels, including approval by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, and covered the disputed portion of land. The first respondent's PTO was found to be invalid, having been granted after the applicants' PTO and lacking the necessary approvals from relevant state entities. The first respondent failed to comply with the prescribed procedure for obtaining a PTO and did not establish a lawful right to occupy the land. The court exercised its discretion to grant a declaratory order in favour of the applicants, confirming their PTO and ordering the ejectment of the first respondent...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicants; declaratory relief and ejectment ordered.

Orders

  • It is declared that the piece of land where the first respondent operates a bricklaying business falls within the boundaries of portion 9 of the farm Plange 221-LT.
  • The Permission to Occupy purportedly issued by the second respondent to the first respondent is declared null and void, unlawful and is set aside.