Kruger v Sibanyoni and Others (LCC119/2020) [2023] ZALCC 37 (26 October 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCC 37
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Y S Meer
- Case number
- LCC119/2020
More details
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Y S Meer
- Case number
- LCC119/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court held that the installation of electricity is an improvement reasonably necessary to make the occupier's dwelling habitable and to enable the exercise of the right to human dignity as protected by section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The refusal by the landowner to consent to the installation of electricity unjustifiably limits the occupier's rights. Given the important public interest in access to electricity and the constitutional implications, there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal is therefore granted, and no order as to costs is made as there are no exceptional circumstances.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
02
Material facts
Parties
Maria Johanna Kruger
Applicant Counsel: Adv. M Snyman SCTate Matthew Sibanyoni & Sibanyoni Family
Respondent Counsel: Adv. K S MashabaMinister of Rural Development and Land Reform
RespondentProvincial Head of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
RespondentEskom Holdings SOC Ltd
RespondentSteve Tshwete Municipality
Respondent03
Procedural history
Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the installation of electricity for an occupier is reasonably necessary to make the dwelling habitable and to enable the exercise of the right to human dignity under section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
- 02
Whether the landowner's refusal to consent to the installation of electricity infringes the occupier's rights.
- 03
Whether there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard given the public interest in access to electricity.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant contends that the installation of electricity is an improvement reasonably necessary for the occupier to make the dwelling habitable and to exercise the right to human dignity as protected by section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The applicant argues that the landowner's refusal to consent to the installation of electricity unjustifiably limits these rights and that the matter raises issues of public interest warranting consideration by the Supreme Court of Appeal.
- Respondent
- The respondent maintains that the landowner is entitled to refuse consent for the installation of electricity on the property and that such refusal does not infringe upon the occupier's rights under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The respondent further argues that the matter does not raise sufficient grounds for leave to appeal and that the previous judgment should stand.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997
The right to human dignity under section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act includes the reasonable necessity of improvements such as electricity to make a dwelling habitable.
- 02
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
Access to electricity is a matter of public interest within the context of the Bill of Rights.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court held that the installation of electricity is an improvement reasonably necessary to make the occupier's dwelling habitable and to enable the exercise of the right to human dignity as protected by section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The refusal by the landowner to consent to the installation of electricity unjustifiably limits the occupier's rights. Given the important public interest in access to electricity and the constitutional implications, there is a compelling reason for the appeal to be heard by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The application for leave to appeal is therefore granted, and no order as to costs is made as there are no exceptional circumstances.
Obiter and limits
- The issue of access to electricity for occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act is of significant public interest and constitutional importance.
- The practice of the Land Claims Court is not to award costs unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were not found in this application.
Court disposition
Application for leave to appeal granted; no order as to costs.
- The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
- There is no order as to costs.
Source and reliance status
Land Claims Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Land Claims Court
Judgment
IN THE LAND CLAIMS
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
HELD AT RANDBURG
Case Number: LCC119/2020
Before: The Honourable Acting Judge President Meer
Heard on: 26 October 2023
Delivered on: 26 October 2023
In the matter between:
MARIA
JOHANNA KRUGER Applicant And
TATE MATTHEW SIBANYONI &
SIBANYONI
FAMILY First Respondent
MINISTER OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
AND
LAND REFORM Second Respondent
PROVINCIAL
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM Third Respondent
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC LTD Fourth Respondent
STEVE
TSHWETE MUNICIPALITY Fifth Respondent In re:
TATE MATTHEW SIBANYONI &
SIBANYONI FAMILY Applicant And
MARIANNE
VAN DER MERWE
AND ANY OTHER
PERSON IN CHARGE OF THE FARM 177, VAALBANK PROTION 13 HENDRINA,
MPUMALANGA First Respondent
MINISTER
OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT
AND LAND REFORM Second Respondent
PROVINCIAL
HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM Third Respondent
ESKOM
HOLDINGS SOC LTD Fourth Respondent
STEVE
TSHWETE MUNICIPALITY Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT –
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL DELIVERED ON
26 OCTOBER 2023
MEER, AJP
[1] The applicant applies for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal against the whole my judgment and order handed down on 7 September 2021. There has been a delay in the bringing of this application as the parties were attempting to settle.
[2] The judgment considers a landowner’s failure to consent to the installation of electricity to an occupier within the context of the right to human dignity included in section 5(a) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997. The judgment finds that the installation of electricity is an improvement that is reasonably necessary to make the occupier’s dwelling habitable, to enable him to exercise his right to human dignity included in section 5(a) of the Act.
[3] The issue addressed in the judgment is one of important public interest concerning access to electricity in the context of the Bill of Rights. There is thus in my view a compelling reason why the appeal should be heard.
[4] This being so, the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted. In keeping with the practice of this court not to award costs unless there are exceptional circumstances, of which I find none in this application, there is no order as to costs.
[5] I grant the following order:
The application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal is granted.
There is no order as to costs.
Y S MEER
Acting Judge President
Land Claims Court
APPEARANCES
For the Applicant: Adv. M Snyman SC
Instructed by: Brandmullers Inc.
For the First Respondent: Adv. K S Mashaba
Instructed by: Mthimunye Attorneys
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.