Dludla NO and Others v Isabelle and Others (8522/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 22 (17 May 2022)

Dludla NO and Others v Isabelle and Others (8522/2020) [2022] ZAKZDHC 22 (17 May 2022)

The court found that the applicants, as registered trustees, had valid authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the trust. The memorandum of understanding was not validly concluded, as it was signed by a non-trustee without proper authorisation, and the alleged resolutions were either not passed by a quorum of trustees or were contradictory and unsupported by evidence. The respondents' occupation and farming activities were not lawfully authorised. The requirements for eviction under PIE were not strictly relevant as the respondents had already vacated the property pursuant to the interim order. The respondents' version was rejected as confused and untenable. The rule nisi was...

Citation
[2022] ZAKZDHC 22
Parties
Applicant: Bongani Thulani Dludla NO; Applicant: Cyril Nkanyiso Dludla NO; Applicant: Protus Qaphelani Ngcobo NO; Applicant: Sibongile Sphiwe Ntombela NO; Applicant: Dudu Rachel Khanyile NO; Respondent: Nicholas Paul Isabelle; Respondent: Willem Vermaak; Respondent: Vriendschap Boerdery NC (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the Mahamba Hlala Trust); Respondent: Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the Ed Maritz Merino Trust); Respondent: Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the JJS Maritz Merino Trust); Respondent: Henk Maritz; Respondent: Alistair McMurray; Respondent: Colin Hohls; Respondent: Newco (Pty) Ltd
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 May 2022
Case Number
8522/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Final Relief
Outcome
Rule nisi confirmed against first to sixth respondents; costs awarded against first to sixth respondents; remainder of rule nisi discharged.
Judges
Lopes
Legal Topics
Trustees Authority, Memorandum of Understanding, Eviction Order, Rule Nisi, Trust Property Control Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trustees Authority Memorandum of Understanding Eviction Order Rule Nisi Trust Property Control Act

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongani Thulani Dludla NO

Applicant

Cyril Nkanyiso Dludla NO

Applicant

Protus Qaphelani Ngcobo NO

Applicant

Sibongile Sphiwe Ntombela NO

Applicant

Dudu Rachel Khanyile NO

Applicant

Nicholas Paul Isabelle

Respondent

Willem Vermaak

Respondent

Vriendschap Boerdery NC (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the Mahamba Hlala Trust)

Respondent

Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the Ed Maritz Merino Trust)

Respondent

Nico Willem Harris NO (trustee of the JJS Maritz Merino Trust)

Respondent

Henk Maritz

Respondent

Alistair McMurray

Respondent

Colin Hohls

Respondent

Newco (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Final Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustees had authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the trust.
  2. 2 Whether the memorandum of understanding was validly concluded and binding on the trust.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants complied with statutory requirements for eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as registered trustees, had valid authority to institute proceedings on behalf of the trust. The memorandum of understanding was not validly concluded, as it was signed by a non-trustee without proper authorisation, and the alleged resolutions were either not passed by a quorum of trustees or were contradictory and unsupported by evidence. The respondents' occupation and farming activities were not lawfully authorised. The requirements for eviction under PIE were not strictly relevant as the respondents had already vacated the property pursuant to the interim order. The respondents' version was rejected as confused and untenable. The rule nisi was...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi confirmed against first to sixth respondents; costs awarded against first to sixth respondents; remainder of rule nisi discharged.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of the rule nisi issued on 10 December 2020 are confirmed against the first to sixth respondents.
  • The remainder of the rule nisi is discharged.