Jansen van Rensburg v Khumalo and Others (LCC39R/07) [2007] ZALCC 17 (12 June 2007)

Jansen van Rensburg v Khumalo and Others (LCC39R/07) [2007] ZALCC 17 (12 June 2007)

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with section 9(2)(a) of ESTA, as the respondents' right of residence was not lawfully terminated and the required twelve months' written notice was not given. Furthermore, the applicant's offer to purchase a vacant site did not meet the definition of suitable alternative accommodation under section 10(2) of ESTA. As both statutory requirements were not satisfied, the eviction order granted by the Magistrate could not be confirmed and was set aside.

Citation
[2007] ZALCC 17
Parties
Applicant: Willem Johannes Joubert Jansen van Rensburg; Respondent: Lesaya Khumalo; Respondent: Makhubeka Khumalo; Respondent: Mashabangu Khumalo; Respondent: Elliot Khumalo; Respondent: Gideon Khumalo; Respondent: Nhlamvana Khumalo
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2007
Case Number
LCC39R/07
Procedural Posture
Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order Under ESTA
Outcome
The eviction order granted by the Magistrate: Utrecht, including the cost order, is set aside.
Judges
Gildenhuys
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Termination of Right of Residence, Suitable Alternative Accommodation
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Termination of Right of Residence Suitable Alternative Accommodation

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Johannes Joubert Jansen van Rensburg

Applicant

Lesaya Khumalo

Respondent

Makhubeka Khumalo

Respondent

Mashabangu Khumalo

Respondent

Elliot Khumalo

Respondent

Gideon Khumalo

Respondent

Nhlamvana Khumalo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of section 9(2)(a) of ESTA for lawful termination of residence were met.
  2. 2 Whether suitable alternative accommodation was provided as required by section 10(2) of ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order granted by the Magistrate was lawful and should be confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with section 9(2)(a) of ESTA, as the respondents' right of residence was not lawfully terminated and the required twelve months' written notice was not given. Furthermore, the applicant's offer to purchase a vacant site did not meet the definition of suitable alternative accommodation under section 10(2) of ESTA. As both statutory requirements were not satisfied, the eviction order granted by the Magistrate could not be confirmed and was set aside.

Court Disposition

The eviction order granted by the Magistrate: Utrecht, including the cost order, is set aside.

Orders

  • The entire eviction order granted by the Magistrate: Utrecht on 23 March 2007, including the cost order, is hereby set aside.