Daniels v Scribante and Another (LCC164/2015) [2015] ZALCC 12 (11 November 2015)

Daniels v Scribante and Another (LCC164/2015) [2015] ZALCC 12 (11 November 2015)

The court held that ESTA does not confer on occupiers the right to effect improvements to their dwellings without the owner's consent. Section 13 of ESTA, which provides for compensation for improvements upon eviction, does not create an abstract right to make improvements absent consent; rather, it contemplates scenarios where improvements may have occurred, with or without consent, for the purpose of determining compensation. The rights of occupiers under ESTA must be balanced with those of owners, and the statute does not permit unilateral exercise of rights by occupiers. The persistent refusal of consent by the respondents was noted as unfortunate and potentially unreasonable, but the...

Citation
[2015] ZALCC 12
Parties
Appellant: Yolanda Daniels; Respondent: Theo Scribante; Respondent: Chardonne Properties CC
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2015
Case Number
LCC164/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Stellenbosch Magistrates Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
Y S Meer, M Pshe
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Occupier Rights, Improvements to Dwelling, Owner Consent, Compensation for Improvements
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Occupier Rights Improvements to Dwelling Owner Consent Compensation for Improvements

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yolanda Daniels

Appellant

Theo Scribante

Respondent

Chardonne Properties CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Stellenbosch Magistrates Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an occupier under ESTA has the right to effect improvements to their dwelling without the owner's consent.
  2. 2 Whether section 13 of ESTA confers a right to make improvements absent owner consent.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has become academic due to termination of occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that ESTA does not confer on occupiers the right to effect improvements to their dwellings without the owner's consent. Section 13 of ESTA, which provides for compensation for improvements upon eviction, does not create an abstract right to make improvements absent consent; rather, it contemplates scenarios where improvements may have occurred, with or without consent, for the purpose of determining compensation. The rights of occupiers under ESTA must be balanced with those of owners, and the statute does not permit unilateral exercise of rights by occupiers. The persistent refusal of consent by the respondents was noted as unfortunate and potentially unreasonable, but the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

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