Molusi and Others v Voges N.O. and Others (CCT96/15) [2016] ZACC 6; 2016 (3) SA 370 (CC); 2016 (7) BCLR 839 (CC) (1 March 2016)

Molusi and Others v Voges N.O. and Others (CCT96/15) [2016] ZACC 6; 2016 (3) SA 370 (CC); 2016 (7) BCLR 839 (CC) (1 March 2016)

The Constitutional Court held that the respondents were not entitled to rely on common law grounds for eviction that were not pleaded or set out in the section 9(2) notice, as ESTA requires that the grounds for eviction be clearly stated and that the process be just and equitable. The lower courts erred by granting eviction based on grounds not properly notified to the applicants, failing to consider all relevant factors, including the applicants' lack of alternative accommodation and the hardship eviction would cause. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and legislative framework prioritizes substantive fairness and justice in eviction proceedings, and that compliance with ESTA...

Citation
[2016] ZACC 6
Parties
Applicant: Sophy Molusi; Applicant: David Mamongalo; Applicant: Isaac Selolwane; Applicant: K L Thwarisang; Applicant: Joseph Ramokane; Applicant: Frans Mokansi; Respondent: Francis Daniel James Voges N.O.; Respondent: Frederika Maria Christina Voges N.O.; Respondent: Head of the North West Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Rustenburg Local Municipality
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2016
Case Number
CCT 96/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal; Review of Land Claims Court and SCA Decisions
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction orders set aside; application for eviction dismissed.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Nkabinde, Nugent, Zondo
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Section 26 Right to Housing, Trial by Ambush, Just and Equitable Eviction, Pleading Requirements
Constitutional Law Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Section 26 Right to Housing Trial by Ambush Just and Equitable Eviction Pleading Requirements

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 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophy Molusi

Applicant

David Mamongalo

Applicant

Isaac Selolwane

Applicant

K L Thwarisang

Applicant

Joseph Ramokane

Applicant

Frans Mokansi

Applicant

Francis Daniel James Voges N.O.

Respondent

Frederika Maria Christina Voges N.O.

Respondent

Head of the North West Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal; Review of Land Claims Court and SCA Decisions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the applicants' right of residence and their eviction complied with the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  2. 2 Whether reliance on common law grounds for eviction, not pleaded in the notice, was permissible.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements of ESTA, including fairness and justice, were met in the eviction process.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the respondents were not entitled to rely on common law grounds for eviction that were not pleaded or set out in the section 9(2) notice, as ESTA requires that the grounds for eviction be clearly stated and that the process be just and equitable. The lower courts erred by granting eviction based on grounds not properly notified to the applicants, failing to consider all relevant factors, including the applicants' lack of alternative accommodation and the hardship eviction would cause. The Court emphasized that the constitutional and legislative framework prioritizes substantive fairness and justice in eviction proceedings, and that compliance with ESTA...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction orders set aside; application for eviction dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • Condonation for the late filing of the opposing papers is granted.