Lebogang v Wallach and Others (LCC 05/2010) [2010] ZALCC 10 (26 March 2010)

Lebogang v Wallach and Others (LCC 05/2010) [2010] ZALCC 10 (26 March 2010)

The applicant established her right to occupy the premises under ESTA and the Constitution, and her right to security of person was compromised by the respondent's dogs, which had previously attacked and killed her child and bitten others. The respondent's offer of a new lease removed the threat of eviction, but he failed to take adequate steps to ensure the applicant's safety from the dogs. The court found the applicant's fear of harm reasonable and held she was entitled to relief ensuring her security. However, the court lacked jurisdiction to order the destruction of the dogs, as such relief is reserved for criminal courts under the Animal Matters Amendment Act. Instead, the court...

Citation
[2010] ZALCC 10
Parties
Applicant: Minah Kelatlile Lebogang; Respondent: Peter Siegward Wallach; Respondent: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2010
Case Number
LCC 05/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination After Urgent Hearing
Outcome
Application granted in part: interdictory relief ensuring applicant's security ordered; no order for destruction of dogs; each party to pay own costs.
Judges
MIA
Legal Topics
Security of Tenure, Interdict, Eviction, Occupier Rights, Animal Control
Land and Property Civil Procedure Security of Tenure Interdict Eviction Occupier Rights Animal Control

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minah Kelatlile Lebogang

Applicant

Peter Siegward Wallach

Respondent

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination After Urgent Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a right to occupy the premises under ESTA and the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant faces unlawful interference or reasonable apprehension of harm from eviction or attack by respondent's dogs.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has no alternative remedy and is entitled to interdictory relief ensuring her security.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established her right to occupy the premises under ESTA and the Constitution, and her right to security of person was compromised by the respondent's dogs, which had previously attacked and killed her child and bitten others. The respondent's offer of a new lease removed the threat of eviction, but he failed to take adequate steps to ensure the applicant's safety from the dogs. The court found the applicant's fear of harm reasonable and held she was entitled to relief ensuring her security. However, the court lacked jurisdiction to order the destruction of the dogs, as such relief is reserved for criminal courts under the Animal Matters Amendment Act. Instead, the court...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part: interdictory relief ensuring applicant's security ordered; no order for destruction of dogs; each party to pay own costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent shall erect a chain link fence around the compound in which unit 26 where the applicant resides.
  • The first respondent shall take all reasonable steps not to allow the dogs to exit the fenced area around his house without adequate supervision.