Hattingh and Others v Juta (440/2011) [2012] ZASCA 84; 2012 (5) SA 237 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 399 (SCA) (30 May 2012)

Hattingh and Others v Juta (440/2011) [2012] ZASCA 84; 2012 (5) SA 237 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 399 (SCA) (30 May 2012)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right to family life in accordance with the culture of that family, as protected under section 6(2)(d) of ESTA, must be interpreted as an associative right, requiring evidence of a cultural practice shared by a community. The appellants failed to establish that their extended family residence with Mrs Hattingh was a cultural practice recognized by a broader community, as opposed to a personal or family preference. The court found that the constitutional protection of cultural rights is associative and not individualistic, and the appellants did not meet the evidentiary burden to show that their arrangement was protected under ESTA. Consequently,...

Citation
[2012] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Michael Hattingh; Appellant: Edwina Junita Hattingh; Appellant: Pieter Hattingh; Respondent: Laurence Edward Juta
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2012
Case Number
440/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; dates for eviction amended; no order as to costs.
Judges
Navsa, Nugent, Leach
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Right to Family Life, Cultural Rights, Eviction, Human Dignity, Constitutional Interpretation
Land and Property Constitutional Law Family and Children Extension of Security of Tenure Act Right to Family Life Cultural Rights Eviction Human Dignity +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Hattingh

Appellant

Edwina Junita Hattingh

Appellant

Pieter Hattingh

Appellant

Laurence Edward Juta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants are entitled to remain on the property by virtue of Mrs Hattingh's rights as an occupier under ESTA section 6(2)(d).
  2. 2 What constitutes 'family life in accordance with the culture of that family' under ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the extended Hattingh family’s residence is protected by cultural rights under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the right to family life in accordance with the culture of that family, as protected under section 6(2)(d) of ESTA, must be interpreted as an associative right, requiring evidence of a cultural practice shared by a community. The appellants failed to establish that their extended family residence with Mrs Hattingh was a cultural practice recognized by a broader community, as opposed to a personal or family preference. The court found that the constitutional protection of cultural rights is associative and not individualistic, and the appellants did not meet the evidentiary burden to show that their arrangement was protected under ESTA. Consequently,...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; dates for eviction amended; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The dates 12 May 2011 and 13 May 2011 in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of the court a quo are amended to read 31 August 2012 and 1 September 2012, respectively.