Molusi v Voges NO (1008/13) [2015] ZASCA 64; [2015] 3 All SA 131 (SCA) (8 May 2015)

Molusi v Voges NO (1008/13) [2015] ZASCA 64; [2015] 3 All SA 131 (SCA) (8 May 2015)

The majority held that the respondents, as owners, were entitled to terminate the periodic leases by giving reasonable notice, regardless of the specific ground stated in the notice or founding affidavit. The court found that the notices of termination were communicated to the appellants and provided a reasonable period to vacate. The procedural requirements of ESTA, including notice to relevant authorities, were satisfied. The appellants' failure to pay rent and lack of tender for arrears justified termination. The eviction was found to be just and equitable, with no evidence of undue hardship or unfairness in the lease terms. The respondents were not precluded from relying on common law...

Citation
[2015] ZASCA 64
Parties
Appellant: Sophy Molusi; Appellant: David Mamagalo; Appellant: Isaac Selolwane; Appellant: K L Twarisang; Appellant: Joseph Ramokane; Appellant: Frans Mokansi; Respondent: Francois Daniël James Voges NO; Respondent: Frederika Maria Christina Voges NO; Respondent: Head of the North West Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Rustenburg Local Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
1008/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Eviction order confirmed.
Judges
Mpati, Ponnan, Bosielo, Shongwe, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Lease Termination, Right to Housing, Notice Requirements, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Lease Termination Right to Housing Notice Requirements +1 more

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 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sophy Molusi

Appellant

David Mamagalo

Appellant

Isaac Selolwane

Appellant

K L Twarisang

Appellant

Joseph Ramokane

Appellant

Frans Mokansi

Appellant

Francois Daniël James Voges NO

Respondent

Frederika Maria Christina Voges NO

Respondent

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

Respondent

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' right of residence was lawfully terminated under ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents could rely on common law grounds for termination not stated in the notice or founding affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements of ESTA, including proper notice and grounds for eviction, were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the respondents, as owners, were entitled to terminate the periodic leases by giving reasonable notice, regardless of the specific ground stated in the notice or founding affidavit. The court found that the notices of termination were communicated to the appellants and provided a reasonable period to vacate. The procedural requirements of ESTA, including notice to relevant authorities, were satisfied. The appellants' failure to pay rent and lack of tender for arrears justified termination. The eviction was found to be just and equitable, with no evidence of undue hardship or unfairness in the lease terms. The respondents were not precluded from relying on common law...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. Eviction order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellants and all other persons occupying under or through them are ordered to vacate Portion 81 (a portion of Portion 65) of the farm Boschfontein 330-JQ, Rustenburg, on or before 7 June 2015.