Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Munchu, Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Leganjane (LCC20R/2009, LCC23R/2009) [2009] ZALCC 6 (22 June 2009)

Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Munchu, Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd v Leganjane (LCC20R/2009, LCC23R/2009) [2009] ZALCC 6 (22 June 2009)

The court found that the magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 9(2) of ESTA before granting the eviction orders. There was insufficient evidence of proper termination of residence, no adequate written notice to vacate, and non-compliance with the prescribed manner of service. The records showed confusion regarding service and lack of substantial compliance with regulation 9. Disputes of fact were not properly referred to evidence, and the suitability of alternative accommodation was not adequately considered. In light of these deficiencies, the eviction orders could not be confirmed and were set aside in their entirety.

Citation
[2009] ZALCC 6
Parties
Applicant: Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Johannes Munchu; Respondent: Paul Leganjane
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2009
Case Number
LCC20R/2009, LCC23R/2009
Procedural Posture
Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction orders set aside due to non-compliance with ESTA requirements.
Judges
SC Mia
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Service of Process, Alternative Accommodation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Service of Process Alternative Accommodation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mollem Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Johannes Munchu

Respondent

Paul Leganjane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of section 9(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) were complied with before granting the eviction orders.
  2. 2 Whether proper notice and service were effected on the respondents in accordance with ESTA and its regulations.
  3. 3 Whether disputes of fact were properly referred to evidence before granting eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 9(2) of ESTA before granting the eviction orders. There was insufficient evidence of proper termination of residence, no adequate written notice to vacate, and non-compliance with the prescribed manner of service. The records showed confusion regarding service and lack of substantial compliance with regulation 9. Disputes of fact were not properly referred to evidence, and the suitability of alternative accommodation was not adequately considered. In light of these deficiencies, the eviction orders could not be confirmed and were set aside in their entirety.

Court Disposition

Eviction orders set aside due to non-compliance with ESTA requirements.

Orders

  • The whole of the order of the Magistrate Klerksdorp in case numbers 7521/2007 and 7524/2007 is set aside.