Maluleke N.O. v Sibanyoni and Others (1012/2020) [2022] ZASCA 40 (4 April 2022)

Maluleke N.O. v Sibanyoni and Others (1012/2020) [2022] ZASCA 40 (4 April 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Trust failed to provide Mr Sibanyoni with an effective opportunity to make representations before terminating his right of residence, as required by section 8(1)(e) of ESTA. The Trust's claims of hardship were unsupported by evidence, and the alternative accommodation proposed was unsuitable given Mr Sibanyoni's livestock. The procedural fairness requirement is not satisfied by allowing representations only before the court; it must occur before the termination decision. The comparative hardship to Mr Sibanyoni and his family far outweighed any hardship to the Trust. As a result, the termination of the right of residence was not just and...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 40
Parties
Appellant: Timothy Maluleke N.O.; Respondent: Daniel Phellimon Sibanyoni; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 April 2022
Case Number
1012/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Mocumie, Molemela, Carelse, Musi, Smith
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Procedural Fairness, Right of Residence Termination, Comparative Hardship, Alternative Accommodation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Just and Equitable Eviction Procedural Fairness Right of Residence Termination Comparative Hardship +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Maluleke N.O.

Appellant

Daniel Phellimon Sibanyoni

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the termination of the first respondent's right of residence on the farm just and equitable in terms of section 8(1) of ESTA.
  2. 2 Did the Trust provide the occupier with an effective opportunity to make representations before terminating the right of residence.
  3. 3 Does the comparative hardship to the occupier outweigh that of the Trust.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Trust failed to provide Mr Sibanyoni with an effective opportunity to make representations before terminating his right of residence, as required by section 8(1)(e) of ESTA. The Trust's claims of hardship were unsupported by evidence, and the alternative accommodation proposed was unsuitable given Mr Sibanyoni's livestock. The procedural fairness requirement is not satisfied by allowing representations only before the court; it must occur before the termination decision. The comparative hardship to Mr Sibanyoni and his family far outweighed any hardship to the Trust. As a result, the termination of the right of residence was not just and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.