Mthembu v Venter and Another (LCC 193/2013) [2014] ZALCC 9; [2015] 2 All SA 618 (LCC) (29 April 2014)

Mthembu v Venter and Another (LCC 193/2013) [2014] ZALCC 9; [2015] 2 All SA 618 (LCC) (29 April 2014)

The applicant failed to provide sufficient facts to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief sought. He did not identify the specific area of the grazing camp or demonstrate exclusive rights to graze cattle, nor did he provide evidence of ownership of the livestock. The application was ambivalent and conflicted with previous litigation and existing court orders. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, as granting the relief would prejudice the respondents by allowing unrestricted grazing and impeding their rights to fence and manage the property. The court refused the interim relief but allowed the applicant an opportunity to amplify his papers within a set...

Citation
[2014] ZALCC 9
Parties
Applicant: Alfred Mthembu; Respondent: Cornelius Johannes Venter; Respondent: Charmaine Marry Venter
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 April 2014
Case Number
LCC 193/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application; Ex Parte Application Refused; Directions for Further Affidavits
Outcome
Application for interim relief refused; applicant granted leave to amplify papers within specified period.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Interim Interdict, Labour Tenant Rights, Grazing Rights, Prima Facie Evidence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Interim Interdict Labour Tenant Rights Grazing Rights Prima Facie Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Mthembu

Applicant

Cornelius Johannes Venter

Respondent

Charmaine Marry Venter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Application; Ex Parte Application Refused; Directions for Further Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to interim relief regarding grazing and fencing on the farm.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient facts have been disclosed to identify the area affected and the rights allegedly infringed.
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide sufficient facts to establish a prima facie right to the interim relief sought. He did not identify the specific area of the grazing camp or demonstrate exclusive rights to graze cattle, nor did he provide evidence of ownership of the livestock. The application was ambivalent and conflicted with previous litigation and existing court orders. The balance of convenience did not favour the applicant, as granting the relief would prejudice the respondents by allowing unrestricted grazing and impeding their rights to fence and manage the property. The court refused the interim relief but allowed the applicant an opportunity to amplify his papers within a set...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief refused; applicant granted leave to amplify papers within specified period.

Orders

  • The application for interim relief is refused.
  • The applicant is afforded until 9 May 2014 to amplify his application by way of affidavit and amendment, to be delivered by that date.