Joubert v Hendricks and Another (LCC55/05) [2007] ZALCC 6 (19 March 2007)

Joubert v Hendricks and Another (LCC55/05) [2007] ZALCC 6 (19 March 2007)

The court held that the appellant failed to provide credible proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the requirements of section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met for the termination of the respondent's right of residence. The disciplinary hearing record was not produced, and the fairness of the dismissal could not be established. The CCMA settlement agreement did not constitute a final determination of the dispute over termination, as it was repudiated and did not resolve the fairness of the dismissal. The magistrate was correct in finding that the termination was not shown to be just and equitable, and the application for eviction was properly refused.

Citation
[2007] ZALCC 6
Parties
Appellant: Valerie Joubert; Respondent: Micheal Hendricks; Respondent: Kathleen Hendricks
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2007
Case Number
LCC55/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; magistrate's refusal of eviction application confirmed.
Judges
Bam, Pienaar
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Termination of Right of Residence, Unfair Dismissal, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Labour Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Termination of Right of Residence Unfair Dismissal Just and Equitable Eviction

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valerie Joubert

Appellant

Micheal Hendricks

Respondent

Kathleen Hendricks

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant complied with section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act in terminating the respondent's right of residence.
  2. 2 Whether the disciplinary procedures leading to the respondent's dismissal were fair and in accordance with the Labour Relations Act.
  3. 3 Whether the CCMA settlement agreement constituted a final determination of the dispute over termination of residence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant failed to provide credible proof, on a balance of probabilities, that the requirements of section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met for the termination of the respondent's right of residence. The disciplinary hearing record was not produced, and the fairness of the dismissal could not be established. The CCMA settlement agreement did not constitute a final determination of the dispute over termination, as it was repudiated and did not resolve the fairness of the dismissal. The magistrate was correct in finding that the termination was not shown to be just and equitable, and the application for eviction was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; magistrate's refusal of eviction application confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The refusal of the application for eviction by the magistrate's court is confirmed.