Du Plessis and Another v Ross and Others (LCC257/2017) [2020] ZALCC 20 (31 August 2020)

Du Plessis and Another v Ross and Others (LCC257/2017) [2020] ZALCC 20 (31 August 2020)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by the pleadings or evidence, misconstrued the applicants' case and the judgment, and did not correctly reflect the respondents' evidence. The contentions either restated arguments already considered or omitted necessary explanation. The court held that Mrs Ross's rights as an ESTA occupier were properly considered, both independently and in relation to her husband, and that the applicants had complied with the requirements of section 10(3) of ESTA. The interpretation of section 10(3) adopted by the court was consistent with the statutory language, purpose, and relevant case law. The respondents' new arguments did not...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 20
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
31 August 2020
Case Number
LCC257/2017
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
S J Cowen
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Esta, Just and Equitable Termination, Leave to Appeal Standard, Constitutional Rights of Rural Women, Section 10 Esta, Prospects of Success
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Eviction Under Esta Just and Equitable Termination Leave to Appeal Standard Constitutional Rights of Rural Women Section 10 Esta +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 11 Party arguments 2
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

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of Mrs Ross's rights as an ESTA occupier was lawful, just and equitable.
  2. 2 Whether the termination of the ESTA rights of the Ross family was just and equitable.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 10(3) of ESTA were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were not supported by the pleadings or evidence, misconstrued the applicants' case and the judgment, and did not correctly reflect the respondents' evidence. The contentions either restated arguments already considered or omitted necessary explanation. The court held that Mrs Ross's rights as an ESTA occupier were properly considered, both independently and in relation to her husband, and that the applicants had complied with the requirements of section 10(3) of ESTA. The interpretation of section 10(3) adopted by the court was consistent with the statutory language, purpose, and relevant case law. The respondents' new arguments did not...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.