Makanani and Others v Leeuloop and Others (LCC95/2022) [2022] ZALCC 41 (8 August 2022)

Makanani and Others v Leeuloop and Others (LCC95/2022) [2022] ZALCC 41 (8 August 2022)

The court found that the First and Second Applicants were occupiers under ESTA, having resided on the farm with consent and meeting the income eligibility requirements. Their eviction was effected under PIE, which was improper as ESTA was the applicable statute. The High Court's declaration of unlawful occupation did not affect their status under ESTA. The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to order restoration of residence under Section 14 of ESTA without first reviewing the Magistrate's decision. The application was urgent due to the Applicants' imminent homelessness. The court restored the Applicants' rights of residence and made no order as to costs.

Citation
[2022] ZALCC 41
Parties
Applicant: Lebese Leah Makanani; Applicant: Johanna Mashiane Ramodimetja; Applicant: Christoffel Alwyn Kruger; Respondent: Leeuloop Beleggings (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Magistrate Court Cullinan Pretoria East
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 August 2022
Case Number
LCC95/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Restoration of Residence Following Eviction
Outcome
Application granted; rights of residence restored under ESTA; no order as to costs.
Judges
Y S Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Restoration of Residence, Eviction Procedure, Income Eligibility, Urgent Interdict
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Restoration of Residence Eviction Procedure Income Eligibility Urgent Interdict

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

Parties

Lebese Leah Makanani

Applicant

Johanna Mashiane Ramodimetja

Applicant

Christoffel Alwyn Kruger

Applicant

Leeuloop Beleggings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Magistrate Court Cullinan Pretoria East

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Restoration of Residence Following Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Applicants qualify as occupiers under ESTA and were entitled to protection under the Act.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction of the First and Second Applicants was contrary to the provisions of ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether restoration of residence should be ordered under Section 14 of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First and Second Applicants were occupiers under ESTA, having resided on the farm with consent and meeting the income eligibility requirements. Their eviction was effected under PIE, which was improper as ESTA was the applicable statute. The High Court's declaration of unlawful occupation did not affect their status under ESTA. The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to order restoration of residence under Section 14 of ESTA without first reviewing the Magistrate's decision. The application was urgent due to the Applicants' imminent homelessness. The court restored the Applicants' rights of residence and made no order as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application granted; rights of residence restored under ESTA; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The First and Second Applicants' rights of residence on Portion [....] of the farm L[....] No [....] Gauteng Province are restored in terms of Section 14 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act No 62 of 1997.
  • There is no order as to costs.