Loaca v Zwane [2021] ZALCC 8 (21 May 2021)

Loaca v Zwane [2021] ZALCC 8 (21 May 2021)

The Applicants are long-term occupiers protected under ESTA, having resided on the property for over eighteen years with the consent of the previous owner. Their eviction by the Respondent was unlawful, as it was effected without a court order and in contravention of the procedures prescribed by ESTA. The Applicants' dispossession was not voluntary but the result of threats and intimidation, and the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence to the contrary. The urgency of the application is justified by the Applicants' risk of homelessness and the inhuman conditions endured since eviction. The delays in bringing the application are excusable given the Applicants' lack of legal...

Citation
[2021] ZALCC 8
Parties
Applicant: William Velile Loaca; Applicant: Anna Loaca; Respondent: Sipho Zwane
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 May 2021
Case Number
LCC 49/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Restoration of Possession and Interdict
Outcome
Application granted: Applicants restored to possession and Respondent interdicted from harassment; costs awarded against Respondent.
Judges
Mia
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Mandament Van Spolie, Urgent Interdict, Unlawful Eviction, Constitutional Damages
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Mandament Van Spolie Urgent Interdict Unlawful Eviction Constitutional Damages

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

Parties

William Velile Loaca

Applicant

Anna Loaca

Applicant

Sipho Zwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Restoration of Possession and Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and justifies truncated timelines.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants were unlawfully dispossessed of their home and belongings.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants are entitled to restoration of possession under the mandament van spolie and ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicants are long-term occupiers protected under ESTA, having resided on the property for over eighteen years with the consent of the previous owner. Their eviction by the Respondent was unlawful, as it was effected without a court order and in contravention of the procedures prescribed by ESTA. The Applicants' dispossession was not voluntary but the result of threats and intimidation, and the Respondent failed to provide credible evidence to the contrary. The urgency of the application is justified by the Applicants' risk of homelessness and the inhuman conditions endured since eviction. The delays in bringing the application are excusable given the Applicants' lack of legal...

Court Disposition

Application granted: Applicants restored to possession and Respondent interdicted from harassment; costs awarded against Respondent.

Orders

  • The Respondent is ordered to restore the Applicants' possession, occupation and use of the accommodation previously used by them situated at Plot 57, Palesvales, Randfontein, Gauteng.
  • The Respondent is interdicted from threatening, harassing and/or intimidating the Applicants and those holding occupation of the above premises under them.