De Wit v May (LCC45R/03) [2003] ZALCC 15 (12 June 2003)

De Wit v May (LCC45R/03) [2003] ZALCC 15 (12 June 2003)

The agreement between the parties failed to comply with section 12(1)(b) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, as it did not specify a date upon which the occupier could be removed by the sheriff if necessary. Furthermore, the inclusion of a provision for costs in the agreement was contrary to the established practice of the Land Claims Court, which does not prescribe costs in eviction matters of this nature. As a result, the eviction order granted by the Magistrate was set aside in its entirety, and the applicant was granted leave to renew the eviction application on the same papers, supplemented as required, on notice to the respondent.

Citation
[2003] ZALCC 15
Parties
Applicant: De Wit, AJ; Respondent: May, S
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2003
Case Number
LCC 45R/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Outcome
The eviction order of the Magistrate: Joubertina, made on 20 May 2003, is set aside in whole. The applicant is granted leave to renew its eviction application on the same papers, supplemented as necessary, on notice to the respondent.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Court Order Requirements
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Court Order Requirements

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

De Wit, AJ

Applicant

May, S

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the agreement between the parties comply with section 12(1)(b) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act regarding the specification of a date for eviction by the sheriff if necessary.
  2. 2 Is it appropriate for the agreement to include a provision for costs in eviction cases under the practice of the Land Claims Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the parties failed to comply with section 12(1)(b) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, as it did not specify a date upon which the occupier could be removed by the sheriff if necessary. Furthermore, the inclusion of a provision for costs in the agreement was contrary to the established practice of the Land Claims Court, which does not prescribe costs in eviction matters of this nature. As a result, the eviction order granted by the Magistrate was set aside in its entirety, and the applicant was granted leave to renew the eviction application on the same papers, supplemented as required, on notice to the respondent.

Court Disposition

The eviction order of the Magistrate: Joubertina, made on 20 May 2003, is set aside in whole. The applicant is granted leave to renew its eviction application on the same papers, supplemented as necessary, on notice to the respondent.

Orders

  • The eviction order of the Magistrate: Joubertina, made on 20 May 2003, is set aside in whole.
  • The applicant is given leave to renew its eviction application on the same papers, supplemented as needs be, on notice to the respondents.