Moeleso and Others v Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others (LCC174/2018) [2020] ZALCC 19 (2 December 2020)

Moeleso and Others v Loskop Landgoed Boerdery and Others (LCC174/2018) [2020] ZALCC 19 (2 December 2020)

The court found that the respondents' reduction of the applicants' grazing rights constituted eviction under ESTA, as it deprived them of use of land linked to their residence. The respondents acted without a court order, which is inconsistent with ESTA and unlawful. The respondents' reliance on CARA did not justify unilateral action; judicial oversight is required for curtailment of occupiers' rights. The expert report did not justify the reduction of grazing area, and there was no evidence that alternative grazing was unavailable. The respondents' conduct indicated an intention to permanently remove the livestock, further supporting the finding of unlawful eviction. The applicants are...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 19
Parties
Applicant: Petrus Moeleso; Applicant: David M Mofokeng; Applicant: Maki Moeleso; Applicant: Nini Mabe; Respondent: Loskop Landgoed Boerdery; Respondent: W.A. Pieters; Respondent: Riaan Pieters
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2020
Case Number
LCC174/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Outcome
Application granted in part; respondents' conduct declared unlawful; restoration of grazing rights ordered; leave granted for action proceedings on winter fodder; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Yacoob
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Without Court Order, Grazing Rights, Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Without Court Order Grazing Rights Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Petrus Moeleso

Applicant

David M Mofokeng

Applicant

Maki Moeleso

Applicant

Nini Mabe

Applicant

Loskop Landgoed Boerdery

Respondent

W.A. Pieters

Respondent

Riaan Pieters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Opposed Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to reduce the applicants' grazing rights without a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' actions amounted to eviction under ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to restoration of grazing rights and winter fodder.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' reduction of the applicants' grazing rights constituted eviction under ESTA, as it deprived them of use of land linked to their residence. The respondents acted without a court order, which is inconsistent with ESTA and unlawful. The respondents' reliance on CARA did not justify unilateral action; judicial oversight is required for curtailment of occupiers' rights. The expert report did not justify the reduction of grazing area, and there was no evidence that alternative grazing was unavailable. The respondents' conduct indicated an intention to permanently remove the livestock, further supporting the finding of unlawful eviction. The applicants are...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; respondents' conduct declared unlawful; restoration of grazing rights ordered; leave granted for action proceedings on winter fodder; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The respondents' conduct in reducing the grazing available to the applicants in the absence of a court order is unlawful.
  • The respondents are ordered to restore to the applicants the right to graze on a camp of at least similar capacity to the camp from which the applicants' livestock has been removed, on the farm known as Barnea 231 in the District of Bethlehem, Free State Province.