Moosa and Another v Community Development Board (239/85/av) [1986] ZASCA 144; [1990] 1 All SA 1 (A) (28 November 1986)

Moosa and Another v Community Development Board (239/85/av) [1986] ZASCA 144; [1990] 1 All SA 1 (A) (28 November 1986)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Community Development Board was entitled to eject Cassim from the property after the lease was validly terminated by notice. The Board's representative, Muser, was properly authorized both by ministerial delegation and subsequent ratification. The notice of termination was valid and within the scope of delegated authority. The summary remedy under s.18(1) of the Community Development Act did not preclude the Board from seeking ejectment through the courts. The argument that Cassim's eviction constituted 'own affairs' of the Indian population group under the Constitution Act was rejected; the administration of the Community Development Act in...

Citation
[1986] ZASCA 144
Parties
Appellant: Iasa Moosa; Appellant: Mohamed Sayed Cassim; Respondent: Community Development Board
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1986
Case Number
239/85/av
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Jansen, Hoexter, Grosskopf, Galgut, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Termination of Lease, Ministerial Delegation, Group Areas Act, Authority to Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Ejectment Termination of Lease Ministerial Delegation Group Areas Act Authority to 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Iasa Moosa

Appellant

Mohamed Sayed Cassim

Appellant

Community Development Board

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Witwatersrand Local Division; Leave to Appeal Granted by Supreme Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Community Development Board was entitled to eject the appellants from the property after termination of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of termination of lease was valid and properly authorized.
  3. 3 Whether the matter constituted 'own affairs' of the Indian population group under the Constitution Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Community Development Board was entitled to eject Cassim from the property after the lease was validly terminated by notice. The Board's representative, Muser, was properly authorized both by ministerial delegation and subsequent ratification. The notice of termination was valid and within the scope of delegated authority. The summary remedy under s.18(1) of the Community Development Act did not preclude the Board from seeking ejectment through the courts. The argument that Cassim's eviction constituted 'own affairs' of the Indian population group under the Constitution Act was rejected; the administration of the Community Development Act in...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.