Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited v Viljoen (LCC71/2007) [2007] ZALCC 27 (1 October 2007)

Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited v Viljoen (LCC71/2007) [2007] ZALCC 27 (1 October 2007)

The court found that the respondent met all requirements to be considered an 'occupier' under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act at the time the eviction proceedings were instituted, as he was not earning an income and had previously had consent to occupy the premises. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under PIE, and the applicant failed to follow the procedures prescribed by the Act. The application for eviction was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2007] ZALCC 27
Parties
Applicant: Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited; Respondent: Gerhard Viljoen
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 October 2007
Case Number
LCC71/2007
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction dismissed with costs.
Judges
F C Bam
Legal Topics
Eviction, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Jurisdiction, Means Test
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Extension of Security of Tenure Act Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Jurisdiction Means Test

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited

Applicant

Gerhard Viljoen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent qualifies as an 'occupier' under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and is protected from eviction under that Act.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to hear the eviction application under PIE or whether the matter should have been brought under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's income at the relevant time disqualified him from protection under the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent met all requirements to be considered an 'occupier' under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act at the time the eviction proceedings were instituted, as he was not earning an income and had previously had consent to occupy the premises. The High Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter under PIE, and the applicant failed to follow the procedures prescribed by the Act. The application for eviction was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed with costs.