Move-on-up 1014 CC and Others v Zulu (LCC135/06) [2008] ZALCC 5 (1 January 2008)

Move-on-up 1014 CC and Others v Zulu (LCC135/06) [2008] ZALCC 5 (1 January 2008)

The court found that the respondent's right of occupation originated from a lease agreement which expired, and that he was not a labour tenant protected from eviction under ESTA. The respondent's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory, and the probabilities favoured the applicants' version. The respondent failed to demonstrate that he lacked alternative accommodation, and the court was not convinced that eviction would render him homeless. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant an eviction order, considering the respondent's rent-free occupation for several years and the absence of a valid defence. No compensation for improvements was awarded, but the...

Citation
[2008] ZALCC 5
Parties
Applicant: Move-on-up 1014 CC; Applicant: C T N Papenfus; Respondent: P V N Zulu
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 January 2008
Case Number
LCC135/06
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondent; respondent and those occupying under him must vacate the property within 45 days; respondent allowed to harvest standing crops before 31 January 2009; costs order made against respondent.
Judges
Gildenhuys
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Alternative Accommodation, Lease Agreement, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Alternative Accommodation Lease Agreement Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Move-on-up 1014 CC

Applicant

C T N Papenfus

Applicant

P V N Zulu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's occupation of the farm is lawful after expiry of the lease.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is a labour tenant protected from eviction under ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under section 11 of ESTA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's right of occupation originated from a lease agreement which expired, and that he was not a labour tenant protected from eviction under ESTA. The respondent's evidence was found to be unreliable and contradictory, and the probabilities favoured the applicants' version. The respondent failed to demonstrate that he lacked alternative accommodation, and the court was not convinced that eviction would render him homeless. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant an eviction order, considering the respondent's rent-free occupation for several years and the absence of a valid defence. No compensation for improvements was awarded, but the...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondent; respondent and those occupying under him must vacate the property within 45 days; respondent allowed to harvest standing crops before 31 January 2009; costs order made against respondent.

Orders

  • An eviction order is granted against the respondent.
  • The respondent and those occupying under or through him must vacate the remaining extent of the farm Kranspan by no later than 12 December 2008.