Mahlangu and Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC 179/2010) [2011] ZALCC 16 (30 March 2011)

Mahlangu and Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC 179/2010) [2011] ZALCC 16 (30 March 2011)

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right to remain on the property, either as family members of an ESTA occupier or potentially as independent occupiers. The settlement agreement and its annexures were ambiguous and did not constitute a valid waiver of rights under ESTA. The lists attached to the agreement were unreliable, and there was no evidence as to their preparation or accuracy. The Act itself defines who is protected, and no agreement can override statutory protection. Given the urgency and the serious issue to be tried regarding the applicants' rights, interim relief permitting return to the homestead was justified. The court reserved the question of...

Citation
[2011] ZALCC 16
Parties
Applicant: Sannah Mahlangu; Applicant: Zandile Mahlangu; Applicant: Monica Mahlangu; Applicant: Lettie Mahlangu; Applicant: Elias Mahlangu; Applicant: Fana Mahlangu; Applicant: Tulani Mahlangu; Applicant: Sibongile Mahlangu; Applicant: Mishack Mahlangu; Applicant: Solly Mahlangu; Applicant: Rosinah Mahlangu; Respondent: Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: The Sheriff, Randburg
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2011
Case Number
LCC 179/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Pending Final Determination of Main Application
Outcome
Interim relief granted; applicants permitted to return to the homestead pending final determination. Costs reserved.
Judges
CE Loots
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Interim Interdict, Waiver of Rights, Settlement Agreement Interpretation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Interim Interdict Waiver of Rights Settlement Agreement Interpretation

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sannah Mahlangu

Applicant

Zandile Mahlangu

Applicant

Monica Mahlangu

Applicant

Lettie Mahlangu

Applicant

Elias Mahlangu

Applicant

Fana Mahlangu

Applicant

Tulani Mahlangu

Applicant

Sibongile Mahlangu

Applicant

Mishack Mahlangu

Applicant

Solly Mahlangu

Applicant

Rosinah Mahlangu

Applicant

Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

The Sheriff, Randburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief Application Pending Final Determination of Main Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction of the Second to Eleventh Applicants and partial demolition of the homestead was sanctioned by the prior court order.
  2. 2 Whether the Second to Eleventh Applicants have a prima facie right to remain on the property as ESTA occupiers or family members of an ESTA occupier.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement validly waived the rights of the Second to Eleventh Applicants under ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right to remain on the property, either as family members of an ESTA occupier or potentially as independent occupiers. The settlement agreement and its annexures were ambiguous and did not constitute a valid waiver of rights under ESTA. The lists attached to the agreement were unreliable, and there was no evidence as to their preparation or accuracy. The Act itself defines who is protected, and no agreement can override statutory protection. Given the urgency and the serious issue to be tried regarding the applicants' rights, interim relief permitting return to the homestead was justified. The court reserved the question of...

Court Disposition

Interim relief granted; applicants permitted to return to the homestead pending final determination. Costs reserved.

Orders

  • Non-compliance with the ordinary rules of the Court is condoned for reasons of urgency.
  • Pending finalization of part 2 of the application, the Applicants are permitted to return to the homestead of the First Applicant which was partially demolished on 1 October 2010.