Ndaba v Braithwaite NO and Others (LCC179/11) [2012] ZALCC 20 (14 November 2012)

Ndaba v Braithwaite NO and Others (LCC179/11) [2012] ZALCC 20 (14 November 2012)

The court found that the respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence and enforceability of any agreement regarding grazing fees with the applicant's deceased husband. The evidence presented was contradictory and inconclusive, and the applicant herself was not privy to any such agreement. As an occupier under ESTA, the applicant enjoys the right to use the land, and the respondents' argument that her rights were limited by an agreement could not be sustained. The applicant failed to prove that she was imminently threatened with eviction or that the respondents' conduct amounted to deprivation of her rights under ESTA. The sending of invoices for grazing fees did not...

Citation
[2012] ZALCC 20
Parties
Applicant: Nomusa Ndaba; Respondent: Tony Reginald Braithwaite NO; Respondent: James William Wright NO; Respondent: Hylton Hugh Lee NO
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2012
Case Number
LCC179/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Final Interdict, Eviction Proceedings, Onus of Proof, Privy of Contract
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Final Interdict Eviction Proceedings Onus of Proof Privy of Contract

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nomusa Ndaba

Applicant

Tony Reginald Braithwaite NO

Respondent

James William Wright NO

Respondent

Hylton Hugh Lee NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an enforceable agreement regarding grazing fees existed between the applicant's deceased husband and the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has been threatened or harassed with eviction in contravention of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence and enforceability of any agreement regarding grazing fees with the applicant's deceased husband. The evidence presented was contradictory and inconclusive, and the applicant herself was not privy to any such agreement. As an occupier under ESTA, the applicant enjoys the right to use the land, and the respondents' argument that her rights were limited by an agreement could not be sustained. The applicant failed to prove that she was imminently threatened with eviction or that the respondents' conduct amounted to deprivation of her rights under ESTA. The sending of invoices for grazing fees did not...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for a final interdict is dismissed.