Joosten v Dlamini (LCC 122/2006) [2010] ZALCC 28 (30 November 2010)

Joosten v Dlamini (LCC 122/2006) [2010] ZALCC 28 (30 November 2010)

The respondent's evidence established that he meets all elements of the statutory definition of a labour tenant: he has resided on the farm since 1974, provided labour in exchange for rights to reside, crop, and graze, and his father was a labour tenant on another farm. The applicant's attempt to withdraw the eviction application was invalid, as it was filed without the respondent's consent or leave of the court, contrary to Rule 27. The applicant's conduct in repeatedly adjourning the matter and withdrawing at the last minute amounted to harassment and justified a costs order against him. The respondent is declared a labour tenant in terms of section 33(2A) of the Act.

Citation
[2010] ZALCC 28
Parties
Applicant: Andre Ludwig Joosten; Respondent: Mzokufa Dlamini
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2010
Case Number
LCC 122/2006
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Trial and Final Determination of Labour Tenant Status
Outcome
The respondent is declared a labour tenant. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.
Judges
Ncube AJ
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Eviction Procedure, Withdrawal of Application, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Labour Tenant Definition Eviction Procedure Withdrawal of Application Costs Award

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andre Ludwig Joosten

Applicant

Mzokufa Dlamini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Trial and Final Determination of Labour Tenant Status

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent qualifies as a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's withdrawal of the eviction application was valid and effective.
  3. 3 Whether an order for costs against the applicant is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's evidence established that he meets all elements of the statutory definition of a labour tenant: he has resided on the farm since 1974, provided labour in exchange for rights to reside, crop, and graze, and his father was a labour tenant on another farm. The applicant's attempt to withdraw the eviction application was invalid, as it was filed without the respondent's consent or leave of the court, contrary to Rule 27. The applicant's conduct in repeatedly adjourning the matter and withdrawing at the last minute amounted to harassment and justified a costs order against him. The respondent is declared a labour tenant in terms of section 33(2A) of the Act.

Court Disposition

The respondent is declared a labour tenant. The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

Orders

  • It is declared in terms of Section 33(2A) of the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act 3 of 1996 that the respondent is a labour tenant.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.