Du Plessis and Another v Ross and Others (LCC257/2017) [2020] ZALCC 30 (26 May 2020)

Du Plessis and Another v Ross and Others (LCC257/2017) [2020] ZALCC 30 (26 May 2020)

The court found that Mr Ross' right to occupy the property was dependent on his employment, which ended in 2011. Mrs Ross is an occupier in her own right under ESTA. The applicants lawfully terminated the rights of residence, having afforded the respondents an opportunity to make representations after the initial decision, which was procedurally fair in the circumstances. The substantive grounds for termination were just and equitable, given the applicants' need for the dwelling for a new employee and the breakdown of the relationship. The court balanced the comparative hardship, noting the Ross family's long tenure and the impact on their children, but concluded that continued occupation...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 30
Parties
Applicant: Gideon Du Plessis; Applicant: Dametex CC; Respondent: Moses Hermanus Ross; Respondent: Maureen Ross; Respondent: All Other Persons Occupying the Property; Respondent: The City of Cape Town; Respondent: Head: Western Cape Provincial Dept of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 May 2020
Case Number
LCC257/2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence and Argument
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents to vacate by 30 June 2021; compensation ordered for improvements; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
S J Cowen
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction of Occupiers, Just and Equitable Termination, Compensation for Improvements, Procedural Fairness, Children's Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction of Occupiers Just and Equitable Termination Compensation for Improvements Procedural Fairness +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gideon Du Plessis

Applicant

Dametex CC

Applicant

Moses Hermanus Ross

Respondent

Maureen Ross

Respondent

All Other Persons Occupying the Property

Respondent

The City of Cape Town

Respondent

Head: Western Cape Provincial Dept of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence and Argument

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Ross is an occupier in her own right under ESTA or only by virtue of Mr Ross' right to family life.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants lawfully terminated the rights of the occupiers to reside on the property in accordance with section 8 of ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the conditions in section 10 or 11 of ESTA have been complied with for eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Ross' right to occupy the property was dependent on his employment, which ended in 2011. Mrs Ross is an occupier in her own right under ESTA. The applicants lawfully terminated the rights of residence, having afforded the respondents an opportunity to make representations after the initial decision, which was procedurally fair in the circumstances. The substantive grounds for termination were just and equitable, given the applicants' need for the dwelling for a new employee and the breakdown of the relationship. The court balanced the comparative hardship, noting the Ross family's long tenure and the impact on their children, but concluded that continued occupation...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents to vacate by 30 June 2021; compensation ordered for improvements; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The first to third respondents are to vacate the property by 30 June 2021.
  • Should the respondents not vacate as aforesaid, the Sheriff for the area is authorized to secure their eviction on 2 July 2021.