CDH Watson NO and others v Tsoanyane & Another [2020] ZALCC 35 (21 December 2020)
The applicants established a clear right to restrain the respondents from ploughing, planting, and allowing livestock outside the occupiers' area, as the respondents have no consent or right to use Trust property beyond the designated area. The harm to the Trust's business is irreparable and not adequately remedied by damages. The balance of convenience favours the applicants, given the respondents' expansion of commercial livestock operations and failure to rebut the presumption of irreparable loss. However, the request to demolish the newly erected structure outside the occupiers' area is postponed sine die, as such relief may amount to an eviction and requires compliance with ESTA and...
- Citation
- [2020] ZALCC 35
- Parties
- Applicant: CDH Watson NO and others (in their capacity as Trustees of the HFG Trust); Respondent: Bannie Thamsanqa Tsoanyane; Respondent: Leonard Vusumuzi Tsoanyane
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2020
- Case Number
- LCC102/2020
- Procedural Posture
- Interim Interdict Application / Interim Relief Pending Finalization of Eviction Action and Counterclaim
- Outcome
- Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from activities outside the occupiers' area; demolition of new structure postponed sine die; costs reserved.
- Judges
- Cowen
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Interim Interdict, Eviction Procedure, Constitutional Right to Housing, Labour Tenants Act, Balance of Convenience
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CDH Watson NO and others (in their capacity as Trustees of the HFG Trust)
Applicant
Bannie Thamsanqa Tsoanyane
Respondent
Leonard Vusumuzi Tsoanyane
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Interim Interdict Application / Interim Relief Pending Finalization of Eviction Action and Counterclaim
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim interdictory relief restraining the respondents from erecting structures, ploughing, planting, or allowing livestock outside the occupiers' area pending finalization of the main eviction action.
- 2 Whether the removal of the newly erected structure outside the occupiers' area would amount to an eviction requiring compliance with ESTA and constitutional protections.
- 3 Whether the respondents have any right or consent to occupy, build, or use Trust property outside the designated occupiers' area.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants established a clear right to restrain the respondents from ploughing, planting, and allowing livestock outside the occupiers' area, as the respondents have no consent or right to use Trust property beyond the designated area. The harm to the Trust's business is irreparable and not adequately remedied by damages. The balance of convenience favours the applicants, given the respondents' expansion of commercial livestock operations and failure to rebut the presumption of irreparable loss. However, the request to demolish the newly erected structure outside the occupiers' area is postponed sine die, as such relief may amount to an eviction and requires compliance with ESTA and...
Court Disposition
Interim interdict granted restraining respondents from activities outside the occupiers' area; demolition of new structure postponed sine die; costs reserved.
Orders
- The respondents are interdicted and restrained from erecting, building, or constructing any structures, buildings, or dwellings on the property outside of the occupiers' area.
- The respondents are interdicted and restrained from ploughing or planting any area of the property other than the occupiers' area.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment