Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd v Phasiya (230/2008) [2009] ZASCA 119; 2010 (3) SA 152 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 408 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd v Phasiya (230/2008) [2009] ZASCA 119; 2010 (3) SA 152 (SCA) ; [2010] 1 All SA 408 (SCA) (25 September 2009)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Sam Phasiya had ceased to reside on the premises prior to the institution of eviction proceedings, thereby losing his status as an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The evidence showed that Sam spent most of his time at his sons' homes and only visited the premises occasionally. The respondent, Gideon Phasiya, was occupying the premises with the appellant's consent, which was lawfully terminated with proper notice and extensions. The court held that the termination of the respondent's right of residence was just and equitable, considering the interests of both parties, the appellant's policy to house employees, and the...

Citation
[2009] ZASCA 119
Parties
Appellant: Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Gideon Phasiya
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 September 2009
Case Number
230/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Eviction order granted against the respondent.
Judges
Mpati, Van Heerden, Jafta, Maya, Snyders
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Right of Residence, Just and Equitable Termination
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Right of Residence Just and Equitable Termination

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kiepersol Poultry Farm (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Gideon Phasiya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Sam Phasiya was still an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act at the time eviction proceedings were instituted.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent occupied the premises under his father's rights or in his own right.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of the respondent's right of residence was just and equitable under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Sam Phasiya had ceased to reside on the premises prior to the institution of eviction proceedings, thereby losing his status as an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The evidence showed that Sam spent most of his time at his sons' homes and only visited the premises occasionally. The respondent, Gideon Phasiya, was occupying the premises with the appellant's consent, which was lawfully terminated with proper notice and extensions. The court held that the termination of the respondent's right of residence was just and equitable, considering the interests of both parties, the appellant's policy to house employees, and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Eviction order granted against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to vacate the house he currently occupies on the farm Zandspruit by no later than 31 January 2010.
  • Should the respondent fail to vacate the house by due date, the sheriff is authorised to remove the respondent and his dependants from the said house together with all their belongings and to hand over vacant possession to the appellant.