Labuschagne and Another v Ntshwane (LCC64/03) [2006] ZALCC 9; 2007 (5) SA 129 (LCC) (13 October 2006)

Labuschagne and Another v Ntshwane (LCC64/03) [2006] ZALCC 9; 2007 (5) SA 129 (LCC) (13 October 2006)

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that he was a labour tenant as defined by the Labour Tenants Act, as he did not satisfy all the statutory requirements. The evidence supported the existence of a lease agreement, making the respondent an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The applicants complied with all procedural requirements for eviction, including proper notice and statutory conditions. The defence of lis alibi pedens was rejected as the previous proceedings were not pending and the applicant was entitled to institute new proceedings. The absence of a probation officer's report did not prejudice the respondent, given the circumstances and...

Citation
[2006] ZALCC 9
Parties
Applicant: Christaan Ernest Gerhardus Labuschagne; Applicant: Maria Magdalena Labuschagne; Respondent: Mahomadi Klein Booi Ntshwane
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2006
Case Number
LCC64/03
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him ordered to vacate the farm by 3 November 2006. Costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
F C Bam
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Labour Tenant Definition, Eviction Procedure, Lis Alibi Pedens, Lease Agreement, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Labour Tenant Definition Eviction Procedure Lis Alibi Pedens Lease Agreement 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christaan Ernest Gerhardus Labuschagne

Applicant

Maria Magdalena Labuschagne

Applicant

Mahomadi Klein Booi Ntshwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent qualifies as a labour tenant under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, 3 of 1996.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for eviction under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997, have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of lis alibi pedens is applicable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to establish that he was a labour tenant as defined by the Labour Tenants Act, as he did not satisfy all the statutory requirements. The evidence supported the existence of a lease agreement, making the respondent an occupier under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The applicants complied with all procedural requirements for eviction, including proper notice and statutory conditions. The defence of lis alibi pedens was rejected as the previous proceedings were not pending and the applicant was entitled to institute new proceedings. The absence of a probation officer's report did not prejudice the respondent, given the circumstances and...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him ordered to vacate the farm by 3 November 2006. Costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons claiming occupation of the farm Vlakfontein through him are ordered to vacate the farm on or before 03 November 2006.
  • Should the respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him fail to vacate the farm on 03 November 2006, the Sheriff of the High Court is authorised to remove them from the farm on or after 01 December 2006.