Lebeko and Others v Strydom and Another (177/2014) [2015] ZALCC 2 (27 March 2015)

Lebeko and Others v Strydom and Another (177/2014) [2015] ZALCC 2 (27 March 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to prove any agreement with the first respondent regarding the supply of electricity. The supply and payment arrangements were with the lessee, Mr. Ingwersen, who defaulted, resulting in Eskom disconnecting the electricity. There was no obligation on the respondent to provide electricity. Regarding water, the evidence showed that water was available via taps, and the applicants' claim of total absence of water was false. The inspection in loco confirmed the presence of water and multiple roads providing access to the property, contradicting the applicants' allegations. The court found the application to be dishonest and an abuse of process,...

Citation
[2015] ZALCC 2
Parties
Applicant: Edward Lebeko; Applicant: Andries Moncho; Applicant: Meshack Moetaesi; Applicant: Petrus Molefe; Respondent: CPJ Strydom; Respondent: Sheriff of the High Court, District Ventersdorp
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Case Number
177/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
J.M. Mpshe
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Right of Access to Water, Right of Access to Electricity, Restoration of Services, Abuse of Process
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Right of Access to Water Right of Access to Electricity Restoration of Services Abuse of Process

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

Parties

Edward Lebeko

Applicant

Andries Moncho

Applicant

Meshack Moetaesi

Applicant

Petrus Molefe

Applicant

CPJ Strydom

Respondent

Sheriff of the High Court, District Ventersdorp

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether access to water is a constitutional right of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent deprived the applicants of their constitutional right to water.
  3. 3 Whether access to electricity is a constitutional right.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to prove any agreement with the first respondent regarding the supply of electricity. The supply and payment arrangements were with the lessee, Mr. Ingwersen, who defaulted, resulting in Eskom disconnecting the electricity. There was no obligation on the respondent to provide electricity. Regarding water, the evidence showed that water was available via taps, and the applicants' claim of total absence of water was false. The inspection in loco confirmed the presence of water and multiple roads providing access to the property, contradicting the applicants' allegations. The court found the application to be dishonest and an abuse of process,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The interim order dated 15 December 2014 is discharged.
  • The application is dismissed.