Masingi v Kaalegte Farm 283 KR (LCC01/2024) [2024] ZALCC 2 (22 January 2024)

Masingi v Kaalegte Farm 283 KR (LCC01/2024) [2024] ZALCC 2 (22 January 2024)

The court found that the applicant and the deceased had not resided on Kaalegte Farm 283 KR for forty-five years. Section 6(2)(dA) is framed in the present tense and requires that the deceased be residing on the land at the time of death. The applicant failed to prove current occupier status or that the deceased was a resident at the time of death. The established practice of burial on the farm does not extend to individuals who have long since left the property. The rights of the land owner outweigh the applicant's claim in these circumstances. Accordingly, the application for a mandamus was dismissed.

Citation
[2024] ZALCC 2
Parties
Applicant: Piet Risenga Masingi; Respondent: Kaalegte Farm 283 KR; Respondent: The Trustees of the Farm; Respondent: Any person in charge of the administration and all operations at Kaalegte Farm 283 KR
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2024
Case Number
LCC01/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Ncube
Legal Topics
Right of Burial, Occupier Rights, Land Owner Rights, Mandamus Application
Land and Property Right of Burial Occupier Rights Land Owner Rights Mandamus Application

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Piet Risenga Masingi

Applicant

Kaalegte Farm 283 KR

Respondent

The Trustees of the Farm

Respondent

Any person in charge of the administration and all operations at Kaalegte Farm 283 KR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to bury his deceased son on Kaalegte Farm 283 KR under section 6(2)(dA) of the relevant Act.
  2. 2 Whether the deceased was residing on the farm at the time of his death, as required by law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant retains occupier rights on the farm after leaving it forty-five years ago.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant and the deceased had not resided on Kaalegte Farm 283 KR for forty-five years. Section 6(2)(dA) is framed in the present tense and requires that the deceased be residing on the land at the time of death. The applicant failed to prove current occupier status or that the deceased was a resident at the time of death. The established practice of burial on the farm does not extend to individuals who have long since left the property. The rights of the land owner outweigh the applicant's claim in these circumstances. Accordingly, the application for a mandamus was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

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