Hattingh and Others v Juta (CCT 50/12) [2013] ZACC 5; 2013 (3) SA 275 (CC); 2013 (5) BCLR 509 (CC) (14 March 2013)

Hattingh and Others v Juta (CCT 50/12) [2013] ZACC 5; 2013 (3) SA 275 (CC); 2013 (5) BCLR 509 (CC) (14 March 2013)

The Constitutional Court held that section 6(2)(d) of ESTA does not restrict the right to family life to the nuclear family. The term 'family' includes adult children and extended family members, but the right is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of the landowner. The Court found that, in this case, the applicants had no independent right to reside on the property and their continued occupation would be unjust and inequitable to the landowner, given the owner's need to accommodate his farm manager and the applicants' own admission that they sought alternative accommodation. The Court concluded that eviction of the applicants would not infringe Mrs Hattingh's right to...

Citation
[2013] ZACC 5
Parties
Applicant: Michael Hattingh; Applicant: Edwina Junita Hattingh; Applicant: Pieter Hattingh; Respondent: Laurence Edward Juta
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2013
Case Number
CCT 50/12
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Appeal by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; application for admission of new evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed with amended dates; no order as to costs.
Judges
Zondo, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Right to Family Life, Just and Equitable Eviction, Balancing of Rights, Housing Backlog, Constitutional Interpretation
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Right to Family Life Just and Equitable Eviction Balancing of Rights Housing Backlog +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Hattingh

Applicant

Edwina Junita Hattingh

Applicant

Pieter Hattingh

Applicant

Laurence Edward Juta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court After Dismissal of Appeal by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 6(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act entitle an occupier to live with adult children and extended family on the landowner's property?
  2. 2 Is the limitation of the right to family life to a nuclear family justified under ESTA?
  3. 3 What is the proper balance between the occupier's right to family life and the landowner's rights under section 6(2) of ESTA?

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that section 6(2)(d) of ESTA does not restrict the right to family life to the nuclear family. The term 'family' includes adult children and extended family members, but the right is not absolute and must be balanced with the rights of the landowner. The Court found that, in this case, the applicants had no independent right to reside on the property and their continued occupation would be unjust and inequitable to the landowner, given the owner's need to accommodate his farm manager and the applicants' own admission that they sought alternative accommodation. The Court concluded that eviction of the applicants would not infringe Mrs Hattingh's right to...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; application for admission of new evidence dismissed; appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed with amended dates; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The application for the admission of new evidence is dismissed.