Geldenhuys v Msimang and another (LCC37R/03) [2003] ZALCC 13 (22 May 2003)

Geldenhuys v Msimang and another (LCC37R/03) [2003] ZALCC 13 (22 May 2003)

The court found that the grounds for eviction of the first defendant were established in terms of sections 8 and 10 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. However, in the interests of justice and equity, and with due regard to all relevant factors, the court held that the first defendant should be compensated for the cost of any dwelling he may have erected on the plaintiff's premises, as provided for in section 13 of the Act. Since it was unclear from the papers whether the first defendant himself bore the costs of building the dwelling, the matter was remitted to the magistrate's court to determine this factual issue, to fix the value if applicable, and to make an appropriate...

Citation
[2003] ZALCC 13
Parties
Plaintiff: Geldenhuys, HJK; Defendant: Msimang, VS; Defendant: Msimang, Mrs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Case Number
LCC 37R/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Outcome
Order of eviction not confirmed; matter remitted to magistrate's court for determination of compensation and eviction dates.
Judges
YS Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Compensation for Dwelling, Just and Equitable Remedy
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Compensation for Dwelling Just and Equitable Remedy

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geldenhuys, HJK

Plaintiff

Msimang, VS

Defendant

Msimang, Mrs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grounds for eviction of the first defendant have been established under the Act.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to order compensation for any dwelling erected by the first defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the first defendant himself bore the costs for the building of any dwelling on the premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for eviction of the first defendant were established in terms of sections 8 and 10 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. However, in the interests of justice and equity, and with due regard to all relevant factors, the court held that the first defendant should be compensated for the cost of any dwelling he may have erected on the plaintiff's premises, as provided for in section 13 of the Act. Since it was unclear from the papers whether the first defendant himself bore the costs of building the dwelling, the matter was remitted to the magistrate's court to determine this factual issue, to fix the value if applicable, and to make an appropriate...

Court Disposition

Order of eviction not confirmed; matter remitted to magistrate's court for determination of compensation and eviction dates.

Orders

  • The magistrate is directed to determine whether the first defendant himself bore the costs for the building of any dwelling on the premises and, if so, to fix the value thereof.
  • If the first defendant paid for such building, the magistrate must order the plaintiff to pay compensation to the first defendant in terms of section 13(1) of the Act.