Juta v Hattingh and Others (LC145/2010) [2011] ZALCC 23 (30 March 2011)

Juta v Hattingh and Others (LC145/2010) [2011] ZALCC 23 (30 March 2011)

The court held that section 6(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act does not entitle an occupier to have adult children reside with her on the property unless they are dependants or there is specific evidence supporting a broader cultural right. The respondents failed to provide evidence that their family's culture required adult children to live with their mother or that their mother was so ill as to necessitate their presence as caregivers. The Act, particularly section 8(5), indicates that only a spouse or dependant is protected after the death of an occupier, and this limitation is equitable in balancing the rights of landowners and occupiers. Therefore, the respondents are...

Citation
[2011] ZALCC 23
Parties
Appellant: Laurence Edward Juta; Respondent: Michael Hattingh; Respondent: Edwina Jijnita Hattingh; Respondent: Peter Hattingh; Respondent: The National Minister of Land Affairs; Respondent: The National Minister of Housing; Respondent: The Municipality of Stellenbosch
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2011
Case Number
LC145/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Eviction Application in Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondents ordered to vacate the premises.
Judges
Y S Meer, A Gildonhuys
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Right to Family Life, Eviction Proceedings, Occupier Definition
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Right to Family Life Eviction Proceedings Occupier Definition

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Edward Juta

Appellant

Michael Hattingh

Respondent

Edwina Jijnita Hattingh

Respondent

Peter Hattingh

Respondent

The National Minister of Land Affairs

Respondent

The National Minister of Housing

Respondent

The Municipality of Stellenbosch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Eviction Application in Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 6(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act entitle an occupier to have adult children reside with her on the property?
  2. 2 Are the respondents protected from eviction by virtue of their mother's right to family life under the Act?
  3. 3 Is an eviction order competent against major children of an occupier where the occupier herself is not being evicted?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that section 6(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act does not entitle an occupier to have adult children reside with her on the property unless they are dependants or there is specific evidence supporting a broader cultural right. The respondents failed to provide evidence that their family's culture required adult children to live with their mother or that their mother was so ill as to necessitate their presence as caregivers. The Act, particularly section 8(5), indicates that only a spouse or dependant is protected after the death of an occupier, and this limitation is equitable in balancing the rights of landowners and occupiers. Therefore, the respondents are...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondents ordered to vacate the premises.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to vacate the premises they occupy on the farm Fijnbosch by 12 May 2011.
  • If the respondents do not vacate by 12 May 2011, the Sheriff is authorised and directed to secure their eviction on or after 13 May 2011.