Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (189/2023) [2024] ZASCA 37; 2024 (5) SA 51 (SCA) (3 April 2024)

Moladora Trust v Mereki and Others (189/2023) [2024] ZASCA 37; 2024 (5) SA 51 (SCA) (3 April 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Land Claims Court erred in concluding that a tacit agreement or consent existed for the Mereki children to keep and graze livestock on the appellant's farm. The respondents did not plead or advance any defence of tacit agreement, nor did they contest the trust's version that no consent was ever given. The evidence showed repeated and unequivocal communication from the trust denying permission for livestock grazing, which was never contradicted. The test for tacit agreement requires unequivocal conduct indicating an intention to contract, which was absent in this case. The Land Claims Court's finding was based on conjecture and not supported by...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 37
Parties
Appellant: Moladora Trust; Respondent: Magalone Mereki; Respondent: Topies Mereki; Respondent: Dikhotso Mereki; Respondent: Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 April 2024
Case Number
189/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; order of the Land Claims Court set aside and replaced.
Judges
Ponnan, Matojane, Weiner
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Tacit Agreement, Grazing Rights, Occupier Consent
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Tacit Agreement Grazing Rights Occupier Consent

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moladora Trust

Appellant

Magalone Mereki

Respondent

Topies Mereki

Respondent

Dikhotso Mereki

Respondent

Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Mereki children had consent, express or tacit, to keep and graze livestock on the appellant's farm.
  2. 2 Whether the Land Claims Court erred in finding a tacit agreement or consent for grazing rights.
  3. 3 Whether the termination of grazing rights required compliance with section 8 of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Land Claims Court erred in concluding that a tacit agreement or consent existed for the Mereki children to keep and graze livestock on the appellant's farm. The respondents did not plead or advance any defence of tacit agreement, nor did they contest the trust's version that no consent was ever given. The evidence showed repeated and unequivocal communication from the trust denying permission for livestock grazing, which was never contradicted. The test for tacit agreement requires unequivocal conduct indicating an intention to contract, which was absent in this case. The Land Claims Court's finding was based on conjecture and not supported by...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; order of the Land Claims Court set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • There is no order for costs.