Moyeni v De Vries and Others NNO (808/2019) [2020] ZASCA 128 (13 October 2020)

Moyeni v De Vries and Others NNO (808/2019) [2020] ZASCA 128 (13 October 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant met the requirements of a protected occupier under section 8(4) of ESTA, having resided on the farm for over ten years, being over 60 years old, and having been employed by both the previous and current owners. The respondents admitted her protected status in their affidavits. The alleged breaches of housing rules were not substantiated by compelling evidence, and the appellant's denial could not be rejected on the papers. The Magistrate and Land Claims Court erred in finding otherwise. The appeal was upheld, the eviction order set aside, and the application for eviction dismissed. Condonation for late filing was granted, but the costs...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 128
Parties
Appellant: Katie Moyeni; Respondent: Johannes Petrus De Vries NO; Respondent: Rudi Dawid Strydom NO; Respondent: Marie Christine Elizabeth Meyers NO; Respondent: Johan Willem Meyer NO; Respondent: Tanya De Vries NO
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 October 2020
Case Number
808/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court Automatic Review of Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; application for eviction dismissed; costs of condonation application to be borne by appellant's attorneys.
Judges
NAVSA, MOCUMIE, MAKGOKA, EKSTEEN, GOOSEN
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Protected Occupier Status, Eviction Procedure, Condonation of Late Filing
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Protected Occupier Status Eviction Procedure Condonation of Late Filing

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katie Moyeni

Appellant

Johannes Petrus De Vries NO

Respondent

Rudi Dawid Strydom NO

Respondent

Marie Christine Elizabeth Meyers NO

Respondent

Johan Willem Meyer NO

Respondent

Tanya De Vries NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Land Claims Court Automatic Review of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant qualifies as a protected occupier under section 8(4) of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant committed any breach justifying eviction under section 10(1) of ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order was lawfully granted and confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the appellant met the requirements of a protected occupier under section 8(4) of ESTA, having resided on the farm for over ten years, being over 60 years old, and having been employed by both the previous and current owners. The respondents admitted her protected status in their affidavits. The alleged breaches of housing rules were not substantiated by compelling evidence, and the appellant's denial could not be rejected on the papers. The Magistrate and Land Claims Court erred in finding otherwise. The appeal was upheld, the eviction order set aside, and the application for eviction dismissed. Condonation for late filing was granted, but the costs...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; application for eviction dismissed; costs of condonation application to be borne by appellant's attorneys.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The order of the Land Claims Court confirming the eviction is set aside and substituted with dismissal of the eviction application with costs.