Makubo and Others v Uys and Others (LCC02/2018) [2018] ZALCC 9 (9 May 2018)

Makubo and Others v Uys and Others (LCC02/2018) [2018] ZALCC 9 (9 May 2018)

The court found that the matter was not urgent, as the dam from which the applicant's cattle obtained water was 90% full and there was no imminent threat of deprivation. The inspection in loco confirmed there was no main river on the farm, undermining the applicant's request for access to such water. The applicant failed to establish any actual assaults or harassment by the respondents. Furthermore, the applicant conceded he was not a long-term occupier. Given these findings, the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success on the merits and struck the application off the roll. The parties agreed that no costs order should be made.

Citation
[2018] ZALCC 9
Parties
Applicant: Joseph Ntambo Makubo and Family; Respondent: Mr J S Uys; Respondent: Riet Poort Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Director General Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Lekwa Local Municipality
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2018
Case Number
LCC02/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application Struck Off Roll
Outcome
Application struck off roll; no order as to costs.
Judges
T M Ncube
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Long Term Occupier Status, Eviction Threats, Access to Water, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Long Term Occupier Status Eviction Threats Access to Water Costs Order

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Ntambo Makubo and Family

Applicant

Mr J S Uys

Respondent

Riet Poort Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Director General Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Lekwa Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application Struck Off Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and warrants deviation from ordinary court rules.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant qualifies as a long-term occupier under relevant legislation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining respondents from harassment or eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter was not urgent, as the dam from which the applicant's cattle obtained water was 90% full and there was no imminent threat of deprivation. The inspection in loco confirmed there was no main river on the farm, undermining the applicant's request for access to such water. The applicant failed to establish any actual assaults or harassment by the respondents. Furthermore, the applicant conceded he was not a long-term occupier. Given these findings, the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect of success on the merits and struck the application off the roll. The parties agreed that no costs order should be made.

Court Disposition

Application struck off roll; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off roll.
  • There is no order as to costs.