Ncholo Trust v Mphofu and Another (LCC 6R/2014) [2014] ZALCC 8 (19 March 2014)

Ncholo Trust v Mphofu and Another (LCC 6R/2014) [2014] ZALCC 8 (19 March 2014)

The court found that the eviction order could not be confirmed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under ESTA. The notices served did not comply with the prescribed Form D, omitting crucial information intended to protect unsophisticated farm dwellers. There was no proof of service on the second respondent, the municipality, or the provincial office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, as required by section 9(2)(d) of ESTA. The applicant did not supplement the application with an affidavit confirming compliance, despite undertaking to do so. The presiding officer in the magistrate's court misdirected himself by conflating the...

Citation
[2014] ZALCC 8
Parties
Applicant: Ncholo Trust; Respondent: Johannes Mphofu; Respondent: Queen Tshabalala
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2014
Case Number
LCC 6R/2014
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order set aside due to non-compliance with ESTA procedural requirements.
Judges
Canca
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Standard, Service of Process, Constitutional Right to Housing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Standard Service of Process Constitutional Right to Housing

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ncholo Trust

Applicant

Johannes Mphofu

Respondent

Queen Tshabalala

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order complied with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  2. 2 Whether proper notice was served on all relevant parties as required by ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction was just and equitable in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the eviction order could not be confirmed because the applicant failed to comply with mandatory procedural requirements under ESTA. The notices served did not comply with the prescribed Form D, omitting crucial information intended to protect unsophisticated farm dwellers. There was no proof of service on the second respondent, the municipality, or the provincial office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform, as required by section 9(2)(d) of ESTA. The applicant did not supplement the application with an affidavit confirming compliance, despite undertaking to do so. The presiding officer in the magistrate's court misdirected himself by conflating the...

Court Disposition

Eviction order set aside due to non-compliance with ESTA procedural requirements.

Orders

  • The order for the eviction of the respondents is set aside.
  • The applicant is granted leave to approach the Court for a further order on the same papers supplemented where necessary.