Greyling and Others v Nkosi and Others (LCC45/05) [2009] ZALCC 16 (26 November 2009)

Greyling and Others v Nkosi and Others (LCC45/05) [2009] ZALCC 16 (26 November 2009)

The court found that all Respondents are labour tenants as defined by the Labour Tenant Act, based on their residence, historical provision of labour, and family succession. Section 16 applications were deemed pending, as claims had been lodged and subsequently published, despite departmental delay. However, the Respondents' refusal to render labour, aggressive conduct, and effective takeover of the farm constituted special circumstances justifying eviction under section 14. The Applicants complied with all formal notice requirements, and the return of service was accepted as proof of proper explanation. The Department of Land Affairs' failure to process claims timeously was regrettable...

Citation
[2009] ZALCC 16
Parties
Applicant: Cornelius Greyling; Applicant: Willem Hendrik Greyling; Applicant: Jacobus Minnaar Verploeg; Respondent: Khulu Nkosi; Respondent: Shapi Nkosi; Respondent: Khawulani Nkosi; Respondent: Alfred Vilakazi; Respondent: Linda Zwane; Respondent: Director-General, Department of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
LCC45/05
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment After Full Hearing
Outcome
Eviction application granted against the First to Fifth Respondents and their families under section 14 of the Labour Tenant Act, despite pending claims, due to special circumstances.
Judges
Pienaar AJ
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Eviction, Special Circumstances, Section 16 Application, Notice Requirements, Succession of Labour Tenant Rights, Departmental Delay
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Labour Tenant Eviction Special Circumstances Section 16 Application Notice Requirements Succession of Labour Tenant Rights +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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cornelius Greyling

Applicant

Willem Hendrik Greyling

Applicant

Jacobus Minnaar Verploeg

Applicant

Khulu Nkosi

Respondent

Shapi Nkosi

Respondent

Khawulani Nkosi

Respondent

Alfred Vilakazi

Respondent

Linda Zwane

Respondent

Director-General, Department of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment After Full Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the First to Fifth Respondents labour tenants under the Labour Tenant Act?
  2. 2 Does the lodging of section 16 applications prevent eviction under section 14?
  3. 3 Do special circumstances exist to justify eviction despite pending claims?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all Respondents are labour tenants as defined by the Labour Tenant Act, based on their residence, historical provision of labour, and family succession. Section 16 applications were deemed pending, as claims had been lodged and subsequently published, despite departmental delay. However, the Respondents' refusal to render labour, aggressive conduct, and effective takeover of the farm constituted special circumstances justifying eviction under section 14. The Applicants complied with all formal notice requirements, and the return of service was accepted as proof of proper explanation. The Department of Land Affairs' failure to process claims timeously was regrettable...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted against the First to Fifth Respondents and their families under section 14 of the Labour Tenant Act, despite pending claims, due to special circumstances.

Orders

  • The First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Respondents are declared labour tenants for purposes of the Labour Tenant Act.
  • Eviction application in relation to the First to Fifth Respondents and their family members and associates is granted under section 14 of the Act.