De Jager and Another v Mazibuko (LCC57/2020) [2020] ZALCC 7 (25 August 2020)

De Jager and Another v Mazibuko (LCC57/2020) [2020] ZALCC 7 (25 August 2020)

The court found that the respondent was only permitted to reside and use the dwellings within her demarcated homestead area and had no consent to erect additional structures outside that area. The evidence showed that the applicants never gave such consent, and the respondent's bare denials were untenable. The respondent's right to human dignity under ESTA did not entitle her to build new structures outside the demarcated area without prior engagement and consent from the applicants. The relief sought by the applicants did not constitute an eviction, as the respondent had suitable accommodation within the demarcated area. The applicants were entitled to the interdictory relief and costs...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 7
Parties
Applicant: Theunis Johannes De Jager; Applicant: Theunis De Jager Trust; Respondent: Nonhlanhla Mazibuko
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 August 2020
Case Number
LCC57/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Rule Nisi and Application for Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application granted. Interdictory relief and costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Interim Interdict, Authority to Institute Proceedings, Right to Human Dignity, Demarcated Residential Area
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Interim Interdict Authority to Institute Proceedings Right to Human Dignity Demarcated Residential Area

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Theunis Johannes De Jager

Applicant

Theunis De Jager Trust

Applicant

Nonhlanhla Mazibuko

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Rule Nisi and Application for Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had authority to erect structures outside her demarcated residential area without the applicants' consent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had properly authorised the institution of proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's right to human dignity under ESTA entitled her to build new structures outside the demarcated area.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent was only permitted to reside and use the dwellings within her demarcated homestead area and had no consent to erect additional structures outside that area. The evidence showed that the applicants never gave such consent, and the respondent's bare denials were untenable. The respondent's right to human dignity under ESTA did not entitle her to build new structures outside the demarcated area without prior engagement and consent from the applicants. The relief sought by the applicants did not constitute an eviction, as the respondent had suitable accommodation within the demarcated area. The applicants were entitled to the interdictory relief and costs...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Interdictory relief and costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent, her family, and all persons acting under their authority are interdicted and restrained from performing any construction work on the farm outside the demarcated area without the applicants' written consent.
  • The respondent and associated persons are directed to rehabilitate the area where construction has commenced, demolish all unlawful structures outside the demarcated area, and remove all building materials within 7 days of service of this order.