Gruft N.O and Others v Muller and Others (LCC33R/2023) [2024] ZALCC 4 (25 January 2024)

Gruft N.O and Others v Muller and Others (LCC33R/2023) [2024] ZALCC 4 (25 January 2024)

The court confirmed the eviction of the First Respondent as his right of residence was lawfully terminated following his dismissal for gross misconduct, which was confirmed by the CCMA and complied with the requirements of ESTA. However, the Second to Fourth Respondents had resided on the farm continuously since 2007 with the Applicants' knowledge, making them occupiers in their own right under ESTA. Their rights of residence were not individually terminated in accordance with section 8(1) of ESTA, nor were the relevant factors considered. The notices relied upon by the Applicants failed to address their independent rights. The court found that the eviction orders against the Second to...

Citation
[2024] ZALCC 4
Parties
Applicant: Julian Mark Gruft N.O; Applicant: Dennis Louis Zetler N.O; Applicant: S. Zetler & Sons Farming Enterprises CC; Respondent: Piet Patrick Muller; Respondent: Dorothea Muller; Respondent: Ashlin Muller; Respondent: Javigail Muller; Respondent: Stellenbosch Municipality; Respondent: Minister of Land Affairs
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 January 2024
Case Number
LCC33R/2023
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of ESTA
Outcome
Eviction of the First Respondent confirmed; eviction of the Second to Fourth Respondents set aside; no order as to costs.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Proceedings, Termination of Right of Residence, Consent to Occupy, Just and Equitable Termination
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Proceedings Termination of Right of Residence Consent to Occupy Just and Equitable Termination

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

Julian Mark Gruft N.O

Applicant

Dennis Louis Zetler N.O

Applicant

S. Zetler & Sons Farming Enterprises CC

Applicant

Piet Patrick Muller

Respondent

Dorothea Muller

Respondent

Ashlin Muller

Respondent

Javigail Muller

Respondent

Stellenbosch Municipality

Respondent

Minister of Land Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order against the First Respondent was lawfully granted under ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction orders against the Second to Fourth Respondents were lawful given their independent rights of occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of residence for the Second to Fourth Respondents complied with section 8(1) of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court confirmed the eviction of the First Respondent as his right of residence was lawfully terminated following his dismissal for gross misconduct, which was confirmed by the CCMA and complied with the requirements of ESTA. However, the Second to Fourth Respondents had resided on the farm continuously since 2007 with the Applicants' knowledge, making them occupiers in their own right under ESTA. Their rights of residence were not individually terminated in accordance with section 8(1) of ESTA, nor were the relevant factors considered. The notices relied upon by the Applicants failed to address their independent rights. The court found that the eviction orders against the Second to...

Court Disposition

Eviction of the First Respondent confirmed; eviction of the Second to Fourth Respondents set aside; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The order for the eviction of the First Respondent is confirmed.
  • The order for the eviction of the Second to Fourth Respondents is set aside.