First Reality (Krugersdorp) Pty Ltd v Mitchell and Others (LCC123/2018) [2021] ZALCC 21 (23 August 2021)

First Reality (Krugersdorp) Pty Ltd v Mitchell and Others (LCC123/2018) [2021] ZALCC 21 (23 August 2021)

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The submissions advanced in support of the application merely repeat those made during the hearing and do not raise any new or compelling points. The applicant conceded non-compliance with section 8(1)(e) of ESTA and accepted that the Snydos judgment is binding. The attack on the judgment is largely factual, and there is no basis to conclude that the interests of justice require leave to appeal. Costs are awarded against the applicant, including wasted costs due to the postponement caused by late filing of heads of argument.

Citation
[2021] ZALCC 21
Parties
Applicant: First Reality (Krugersdorp) Pty Ltd; Respondent: Gertjie Mitchell; Respondent: Bettie Mitchell; Respondent: Michelle Haarvoor; Respondent: Gerhard Mitchell; Respondent: Willem Januarie; Respondent: Dolfina Januarie; Respondent: Anna-Marie van Wyk; Respondent: Jeremy Januarie; Respondent: Nazeem Lennerts; Respondent: Mary Lennerts; Respondent: Kayla Goosen; Respondent: Hennie Bailey; Respondent: Katrina Bailey; Respondent: Faiza Bailey; Respondent: Absolon van Wyk; Respondent: Truitjie Goosen; Respondent: Shirley Goosen; Respondent: Jerome Arendse; Respondent: Sara Arendse; Respondent: Lee-Hano Jonathan; Respondent: Anna Januarie; Respondent: Aletsea Mitchell; Respondent: Welmarie Mitchell; Respondent: Franklin Mitchell; Respondent: All those holding title through First to Twenty Sixth Respondents or occupying cottages 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Farm Hammansdans, Portion 6 of Farm No 191, Division Paarl, Western Cape; Respondent: Drakenstein Municipality; Respondent: Head: Western Cape Provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2021
Case Number
LCC123/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Eviction Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.
Judges
Carelse
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Leave to Appeal, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Extension of Security of Tenure Act Leave to Appeal Costs Award

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Reality (Krugersdorp) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Gertjie Mitchell

Respondent

Bettie Mitchell

Respondent

Michelle Haarvoor

Respondent

Gerhard Mitchell

Respondent

Willem Januarie

Respondent

Dolfina Januarie

Respondent

Anna-Marie van Wyk

Respondent

Jeremy Januarie

Respondent

Nazeem Lennerts

Respondent

Mary Lennerts

Respondent

Kayla Goosen

Respondent

Hennie Bailey

Respondent

Katrina Bailey

Respondent

Faiza Bailey

Respondent

Absolon van Wyk

Respondent

Truitjie Goosen

Respondent

Shirley Goosen

Respondent

Jerome Arendse

Respondent

Sara Arendse

Respondent

Lee-Hano Jonathan

Respondent

Anna Januarie

Respondent

Aletsea Mitchell

Respondent

Welmarie Mitchell

Respondent

Franklin Mitchell

Respondent

All those holding title through First to Twenty Sixth Respondents or occupying cottages 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9 & 10 Farm Hammansdans, Portion 6 of Farm No 191, Division Paarl, Western Cape

Respondent

Drakenstein Municipality

Respondent

Head: Western Cape Provincial Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Eviction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the dismissal of the eviction application.
  2. 2 Whether there is any compelling reason in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with the requirements of section 9(2) and section 8(1)(e) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The submissions advanced in support of the application merely repeat those made during the hearing and do not raise any new or compelling points. The applicant conceded non-compliance with section 8(1)(e) of ESTA and accepted that the Snydos judgment is binding. The attack on the judgment is largely factual, and there is no basis to conclude that the interests of justice require leave to appeal. Costs are awarded against the applicant, including wasted costs due to the postponement caused by late filing of heads of argument.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, including wasted costs occasioned by the postponement.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs include the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the matter on 22 July 2021.