Morceaux Boerdery Trust v Vergotine and Another (LCC110R/04) [2004] ZALCC 22 (29 November 2004)

Morceaux Boerdery Trust v Vergotine and Another (LCC110R/04) [2004] ZALCC 22 (29 November 2004)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the first respondent's employment agreement was terminated in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, as required by section 8(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The annexure referred to as proof of a disciplinary inquiry was merely a notice to vacate and not evidence of a proper inquiry or dismissal. Consequently, the magistrate erred in accepting the applicant's allegations as fact and granting the eviction order. The requirements for eviction under section 9(2) were not met, and the order must be set aside.

Citation
[2004] ZALCC 22
Parties
Applicant: Morceaux Boerdery Trust; Respondent: Stephen Vergotine; Respondent: Mina Kamfer
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 November 2004
Case Number
LCC110R/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Outcome
The magistrate's eviction order is set aside in its entirety.
Judges
J Moloto
Legal Topics
Eviction Order Requirements, Termination of Right of Residence, Labour Relations Act Compliance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Order Requirements Termination of Right of Residence Labour Relations Act Compliance

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Morceaux Boerdery Trust

Applicant

Stephen Vergotine

Respondent

Mina Kamfer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements for an eviction order under section 9(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant proved termination of the respondents' right of residence in accordance with section 8(2) of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate erred in accepting the applicant's allegations as fact without sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the first respondent's employment agreement was terminated in accordance with the Labour Relations Act, as required by section 8(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The annexure referred to as proof of a disciplinary inquiry was merely a notice to vacate and not evidence of a proper inquiry or dismissal. Consequently, the magistrate erred in accepting the applicant's allegations as fact and granting the eviction order. The requirements for eviction under section 9(2) were not met, and the order must be set aside.

Court Disposition

The magistrate's eviction order is set aside in its entirety.

Orders

  • The order of the magistrate made on 27 October 2004 is set aside.
  • No order as to costs is made.