Mathe and Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC196/2010) [2011] ZALCC 15 (15 December 2011)

Mathe and Others v Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC196/2010) [2011] ZALCC 15 (15 December 2011)

The court found that seven of the nine applicants qualified as 'occupiers' under ESTA, having resided continuously on the property with consent and earning below the statutory threshold. The eviction of these applicants was unlawful as it was not authorized by a court order under ESTA, and the settlement agreement did not bind them. The third and sixth applicants, although not qualifying under ESTA due to income, were also unlawfully evicted as there was non-compliance with PIE and section 26(3) of the Constitution. The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to declare the eviction unlawful for all applicants, including those not protected by ESTA, to avoid multiplicity of actions and ensure...

Citation
[2011] ZALCC 15
Parties
Applicant: John Mathe; Applicant: Frans Kamela; Applicant: John Keetsi; Applicant: Johannes Pampiri; Applicant: Petrus Mokhuane; Applicant: Elizabeth Sekaleng; Applicant: John Makhubela; Applicant: Johannes Mathe; Applicant: Ida Kgasoane; Respondent: Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: MEC for Local Government and Housing; Respondent: City of Johannesburg; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 December 2011
Case Number
LCC196/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application granted in part. Eviction declared unlawful for all applicants. Orders made for negotiations and reporting; provision for further relief if negotiations fail.
Judges
C E Loots
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Unlawful Eviction, Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court, Section 26 Constitution, Alternative Accommodation, Municipal Obligations
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Unlawful Eviction Jurisdiction of Land Claims Court Section 26 Constitution Alternative Accommodation +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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Mathe

Applicant

Frans Kamela

Applicant

John Keetsi

Applicant

Johannes Pampiri

Applicant

Petrus Mokhuane

Applicant

Elizabeth Sekaleng

Applicant

John Makhubela

Applicant

Johannes Mathe

Applicant

Ida Kgasoane

Applicant

Lanseria Commercial Crossing (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

MEC for Local Government and Housing

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants qualify as 'occupiers' under ESTA and are protected from eviction without a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction of the applicants was lawful and in accordance with the settlement agreement made an order of court.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to declare the eviction of non-ESTA occupiers unlawful under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that seven of the nine applicants qualified as 'occupiers' under ESTA, having resided continuously on the property with consent and earning below the statutory threshold. The eviction of these applicants was unlawful as it was not authorized by a court order under ESTA, and the settlement agreement did not bind them. The third and sixth applicants, although not qualifying under ESTA due to income, were also unlawfully evicted as there was non-compliance with PIE and section 26(3) of the Constitution. The Land Claims Court has jurisdiction to declare the eviction unlawful for all applicants, including those not protected by ESTA, to avoid multiplicity of actions and ensure...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part. Eviction declared unlawful for all applicants. Orders made for negotiations and reporting; provision for further relief if negotiations fail.

Orders

  • The eviction on 1 October 2010 of each and every one of the applicants is declared unlawful.
  • All respondents are ordered to immediately enter into bona fide negotiations with the applicants found to be occupiers under ESTA regarding alternative accommodation.