Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited v Viljoen (733/07) [2008] ZASCA 163; 2009 (3) SA 511 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 231 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 1742 (SCA) (1 December 2008)

Lebowa Platinum Mines Limited v Viljoen (733/07) [2008] ZASCA 163; 2009 (3) SA 511 (SCA) ; [2009] 2 All SA 231 (SCA); (2009) 30 ILJ 1742 (SCA) (1 December 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the definition of 'occupier' under ESTA must be assessed at the time when lawful occupation ceases or when eviction proceedings are instituted. Although the respondent did not qualify as an 'occupier' during his employment due to his income, he remained in occupation with the appellant's consent after dismissal and was unemployed at the relevant time. The court found that the respondent satisfied the requirements of 'occupier' under ESTA when his permission to remain ended. The appellant's housing policy, which allowed a 30-day grace period, extended the respondent's lawful occupation and rendered him an 'occupier' for the purposes of ESTA....

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 163
Parties
Appellant: Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd; Respondent: Gerhard Viljoen
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 December 2008
Case Number
733/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Farlam, Cameron, Jafta, Maya, Mhlantla
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Definition of Occupier, Eviction Proceedings, Termination of Residence Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Definition of Occupier Eviction Proceedings Termination of Residence Rights

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

Parties

Lebowa Platinum Mines Ltd

Appellant

Gerhard Viljoen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'occupier' under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  2. 2 Does the respondent qualify as an 'occupier' at the relevant time for eviction proceedings.
  3. 3 Is the appellant entitled to evict the respondent under PIE or must it proceed under ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the definition of 'occupier' under ESTA must be assessed at the time when lawful occupation ceases or when eviction proceedings are instituted. Although the respondent did not qualify as an 'occupier' during his employment due to his income, he remained in occupation with the appellant's consent after dismissal and was unemployed at the relevant time. The court found that the respondent satisfied the requirements of 'occupier' under ESTA when his permission to remain ended. The appellant's housing policy, which allowed a 30-day grace period, extended the respondent's lawful occupation and rendered him an 'occupier' for the purposes of ESTA....

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.