Motyre (Pty) Ltd - Conradie Family Trust v Gurah and Others (01R2019, 4334/2016) [2019] ZALCC 6 (29 January 2019)

IN

THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

HELD

AT RANDBURG

CASE NO: LCC 01R2019

MAGISTRATE’S COURT CASE NUMBER: 4334/2016

Before: The Honourable Acting Judge President Meer

Delivered: 29 January 2019

In the matter between:

MOTYRE (PTY) LTD – CONRADIE FAMILY TRUST Applicant

And

RANDALL

GURAH

1st Respondent

ALL

OTHER PERSONS RESIDING

2nd Respondent

THE

MUNICIPAL

MANGER

3rd Respondent

THE

CAPE WINE LAND DISTRICT

MUNICIPALITY

THE

MUNICIPAL

MANGER

4th Respondent

THE

BREEDE RIVER VALLEY

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR / THE HEAD

5th Respondent

OF

DEPARTMENT

THE

DEPARTMENT

OF

RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND RURAL REFORM

JUDGMENT DELIVERED 29 JANUARY 2019

MEER AJP.

[1] This matter comes before me on automatic review. I am satisfied that the order for the eviction stands to be confirmed. The following, which appears to have escaped the Court a quo, must however be noted.

[2] The right of residence of the First Respondent predated his contract of employment. His right to reside therefore flowed from consent and not from his employment contract. The factors at Section 8 (1) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act No 62 of 1997 (“the ACT”) thus had to be considered. The founding affidavit did in fact address such factors.

[3] The Second Respondent’s right of residence also flowed from consent and not from the rights of occupation of the First Respondent. The Constitutional Court judgment of Klaase and Another v Van der Merwe No and Others 2016(6) SA131(CC) recognized that the rights of residence of persons like the Second Respondent derived from consent flowing from the combined operation of subsections (4) and (5) of section 3 of the Act. Post Klaase the Second Respondent can no longer be regarded as a mere resident who occupied under the First Respondent. Section 8 (1) applies also in respect of the Second Respondent.

[4] I have carefully considered the evidence and pleadings and I am satisfied that the eviction of the Respondents was just and equitable having regard to all relevant factors and particularly those set out at Section 8 (1) of the Act.

[5] I accordingly order as follows:

The order of eviction is confirmed save that the dates in the order are amended as follows:

Date of eviction: Friday 28 June 2019

Date Sheriff to execute order: Mon 1 July 2019

Y S MEER

Acting Judge President

Land Claims Court