Melsetter (Edms) BPK v Ceylon and Others (LCC123R/07) [2007] ZALCC 24 (6 December 2007)
- Citation
- [2007] ZALCC 24
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC123R/07
More details
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC123R/07
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the first respondent's right of residence on the farm was derived exclusively from his employment contract, which had terminated upon his voluntary resignation. The probation officer's report confirmed that the first respondent did not fall under the protection of ESTA, and therefore, the eviction order granted by the magistrate's court was lawful. The second respondent was identified as the spouse of the first respondent, and the third respondent was presumed to be a family member, but neither was shown to have independent rights of occupation under ESTA. The court concluded that the eviction was properly granted under the correct legal framework.
Court disposition
Eviction order confirmed; respondents not protected under ESTA.
Orders
- The eviction order against the respondents is confirmed.
- The respondents are to vacate the farm Graymead as per the magistrate's order.
02
Material facts
Parties
Melsetter (Edms) BPK
ApplicantPeter Ceylon
RespondentFlorence Ceylon
RespondentLiesl Ceylon
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- Pension Payout to First Respondent: ZAR 396,757.49
- Monthly Salary of First Respondent: ZAR 5,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondents' occupation of the farm was protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
- 02
Whether the eviction order granted by the magistrate's court was lawful under the applicable legislation.
- 03
Whether the respondents qualified as occupiers under ESTA.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant argued that the first respondent's right to reside on the farm arose solely from his employment contract, which had ended when he resigned voluntarily in November 1995. The applicant contended that the respondents did not qualify for protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and that the eviction order was properly granted under the correct legal framework.
- Respondent
- The respondents maintained that they had been residing on the farm as a family, with the first respondent having previously been part of the farm's management team and earning a substantial salary. They argued that their occupation should be protected, but the probation officer's report indicated that the first respondent was not covered by ESTA and that eviction should have proceeded under different legislation.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997
Protection under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act applies only to persons who qualify as occupiers as defined by the Act.
- 02
Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997
Eviction orders must be granted under the correct statutory framework, and persons not covered by ESTA must be dealt with under other applicable laws.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the first respondent's right of residence on the farm was derived exclusively from his employment contract, which had terminated upon his voluntary resignation. The probation officer's report confirmed that the first respondent did not fall under the protection of ESTA, and therefore, the eviction order granted by the magistrate's court was lawful. The second respondent was identified as the spouse of the first respondent, and the third respondent was presumed to be a family member, but neither was shown to have independent rights of occupation under ESTA. The court concluded that the eviction was properly granted under the correct legal framework.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the name of the third respondent did not appear in the probation officer's report and was presumed to be a family member of the first respondent.
- The court emphasized the importance of determining whether occupiers fall within the definition provided by ESTA before granting eviction orders.
Court disposition
Eviction order confirmed; respondents not protected under ESTA.
- The eviction order against the respondents is confirmed.
- The respondents are to vacate the farm Graymead as per the magistrate's order.
Source and reliance status
Land Claims Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Land Claims Court
Judgment
IN DIE GRONDEISEHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
RANDBURG
SAAKNOMMER: LCC123R/07
Beslis op : 6 Desember 2007
In die saak tussen:
MELSETTER (EDMS) BPK Applikant
en
PETER CEYLON Eerste Respondent
FLORENCE CEYLON Tweede Respondent
LIESL CEYLON Derde Responent
UITSPRAAK
Gildenhuys R
[1] In hierdie saak is ‘n bevel teen die respondente vir hul uitsetting van die plaas Graymead op aansoek van die applikant in die Caledon Landdroshof toegestaan. Die uitsettingsaansoek is ingevolge die bepalings van die Wet op Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg, Nr 62 van 1997 (“die Verblyfregwet”) verleen.
[2] Die eerste respondent is ‘n gewese werknemer van die applikant, wie se verblyfreg op die plaas uitsluitlik uit sy diensooreenkoms voortgespruit het. Dit blyk nie duidelik uit die funderende eedsverklaring wie die tweede en derde respondete is nie. Volgens die proefbeampteverslag (verkry kragtens artikel 9(3) van die Verblyfregwet) is die tweede respondent die eerste respondent se eggenote. Die naam van die derde respondent kom nie in die proefbeampteverslag voor nie. Vermoedelik is sy ‘n familielik van die eerste respondent.
[3] Die volgende gedeeltes van die proefbeampteverlsag is van belang:
“6
OPSOMMING
…
Die respondent noem dat hy in November 1995 verywillig bedank het nada thy oorgesien is vir bevordering;
…
Die respondent woon saam met sy vrou, en vyf kinders in die huis;
Die respondent was deel van die plaas se bestuursspan voor hy bedank het en het ‘n salaries van meer as R 5000.00 per maand verdien;
Die respondent het ‘n pensioen uitbetaling ontvang van R 396 757.49 na aftrekkings;
7
OORWEGINGS
Met betrekking tot die inligting soos hierbo uiteer gesit, is dit ons mening dat die volgende aspekte in ag gehou moet word in die oorweging van die saak voor die agbare hof:
7.1 Die respondent nie onder ESTA wetgewing resorteer nie en dat aansoek om uitsetting onder ander wetgewing moes geskied
7.2 …”
______
A GILDENHUYS
JUDGE OF THE LAND CLAIMS COURT
3
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.