Du Plessis and Another v Kriel N.O and Others (LCC88/2022) [2023] ZALCC 43; [2024] 1 All SA 702 (LCC) (14 December 2023)

Du Plessis and Another v Kriel N.O and Others (LCC88/2022) [2023] ZALCC 43; [2024] 1 All SA 702 (LCC) (14 December 2023)

The majority held that section 8 of ESTA applies not only to terminations of rights of residence on land but also to termination of rights of residence in a house on land, including in relocation applications. The Court found that the statutory protections of section 8 are triggered by any termination of residence, whether or not it leads to eviction. However, the appellants failed to establish that they are long-term occupiers protected by section 8(4), as there was insufficient evidence of their tenure and financial status. The Magistrate's factual findings were upheld, and the relocation order was found to be justified. The majority also addressed the racial undertones in the...

Citation
[2023] ZALCC 43
Parties
Appellant: Eugene De Vos du Plessis; Appellant: Hendrieka du Plessis; Respondent: Alexander Floris Kriel N.O; Respondent: Pieter Gabriel Kriel N.O; Respondent: Stefan Le Roux N.O; Respondent: Lokato Patrick Goosen N.O; Respondent: Ida Audrey Goosen N.O; Respondent: Jennifer Mampi Lebaea N.O
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2023
Case Number
LCC88/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Relocation Order Under ESTA
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; relocation order upheld.
Judges
Cowen, Ncube, Flatela
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Relocation of Occupiers, Mandatory Interdict, Security of Tenure, Statutory Interpretation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Relocation of Occupiers Mandatory Interdict Security of Tenure Statutory Interpretation

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eugene De Vos du Plessis

Appellant

Hendrieka du Plessis

Appellant

Alexander Floris Kriel N.O

Respondent

Pieter Gabriel Kriel N.O

Respondent

Stefan Le Roux N.O

Respondent

Lokato Patrick Goosen N.O

Respondent

Ida Audrey Goosen N.O

Respondent

Jennifer Mampi Lebaea N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Relocation Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is section 8 of ESTA applicable to relocation applications or only to evictions.
  2. 2 Are the appellants protected as long-term occupiers under section 8(4) of ESTA.
  3. 3 Did the Magistrate err in granting a mandatory interdict for relocation without compliance with section 8.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that section 8 of ESTA applies not only to terminations of rights of residence on land but also to termination of rights of residence in a house on land, including in relocation applications. The Court found that the statutory protections of section 8 are triggered by any termination of residence, whether or not it leads to eviction. However, the appellants failed to establish that they are long-term occupiers protected by section 8(4), as there was insufficient evidence of their tenure and financial status. The Magistrate's factual findings were upheld, and the relocation order was found to be justified. The majority also addressed the racial undertones in the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; relocation order upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The date for implementation of the Magistrate’s order is 29 February 2024.