Keyser and Another v Keyser (787/2013) [2013] ZANCHC 40 (12 November 2013)

Keyser and Another v Keyser (787/2013) [2013] ZANCHC 40 (12 November 2013)

The court found that the applicants were the registered owners of Portion 8 of the farm Mier 585, as confirmed by the title deed, SearchWorks report, and lease agreement. The reference to Portion 7 in the founding papers was a bona fide mistake, and the respondent was always aware that Portion 8 was the property in question. The respondent failed to deny the applicants' ownership of Portion 8 or his occupation thereof, and did not advance any substantive defence regarding his right to remain after termination of the indulgence. The technical defence based on the mistaken property description was rejected, and the amendment to the notice of motion was granted. The Extension of Security of...

Citation
[2013] ZANCHC 40
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Keyser; Applicant: Maria Magdalena Keyser; Respondent: Willem Christoffel Keyser
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2013
Case Number
787/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicants; respondent ordered to remove livestock and movable property from Portion 8 of farm Mier 585 within 30 days; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Olivier
Legal Topics
Eviction, Locus Standi, Amendment of Pleadings, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Locus Standi Amendment of Pleadings Extension of Security of Tenure Act Costs Order

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

Parties

Jacobus Keyser

Applicant

Maria Magdalena Keyser

Applicant

Willem Christoffel Keyser

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an eviction order against the respondent from Portion 8 of the farm Mier 585.
  2. 2 Whether the mistaken reference to Portion 7 in the founding papers precludes relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has any right to remain on the property after termination of the indulgence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were the registered owners of Portion 8 of the farm Mier 585, as confirmed by the title deed, SearchWorks report, and lease agreement. The reference to Portion 7 in the founding papers was a bona fide mistake, and the respondent was always aware that Portion 8 was the property in question. The respondent failed to deny the applicants' ownership of Portion 8 or his occupation thereof, and did not advance any substantive defence regarding his right to remain after termination of the indulgence. The technical defence based on the mistaken property description was rejected, and the amendment to the notice of motion was granted. The Extension of Security of...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicants; respondent ordered to remove livestock and movable property from Portion 8 of farm Mier 585 within 30 days; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The applications to strike out and for leave to file a further affidavit are dismissed.
  • The applicants’ application to amend paragraph 1 on the notice of motion is granted.