Ngcobo and Another v Johnson (158/2015) [2016] ZALCC 19 (15 September 2016)

Ngcobo and Another v Johnson (158/2015) [2016] ZALCC 19 (15 September 2016)

The applicants failed to dispute the respondent's version of the agreement regarding grazing rights and livestock numbers, as they did not file a replying affidavit. The respondent's evidence, supported by affidavits from previous owners and family members, established that the applicants were only entitled to graze a limited number of livestock in Camp 1, with access to Camp 2 only in exceptional circumstances and by agreement. The applicants are occupiers under ESTA and are subject to its rights and obligations. Their claim to unrestricted grazing across the farm is unsupported by the evidence and is rejected. The application is dismissed, and the applicants are required to restrict...

Citation
[2016] ZALCC 19
Parties
Applicant: Mandla Elphas Ngcobo; Applicant: Meshack Ngcobo; Respondent: Johan Johnson
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2016
Case Number
158/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Applicants required to restrict grazing to Camp 1, with access to Camp 2 only in exceptional circumstances and by agreement. No order as to costs.
Judges
Rajab-Budlender N
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Occupier Rights, Grazing Rights, Contractual Agreement, Motion Proceedings
Land and Property Extension of Security of Tenure Act Occupier Rights Grazing Rights Contractual Agreement Motion Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mandla Elphas Ngcobo

Applicant

Meshack Ngcobo

Applicant

Johan Johnson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to unrestricted grazing rights across the farm or limited to specific camps.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA).
  3. 3 Whether a binding agreement exists regarding grazing rights and livestock numbers.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to dispute the respondent's version of the agreement regarding grazing rights and livestock numbers, as they did not file a replying affidavit. The respondent's evidence, supported by affidavits from previous owners and family members, established that the applicants were only entitled to graze a limited number of livestock in Camp 1, with access to Camp 2 only in exceptional circumstances and by agreement. The applicants are occupiers under ESTA and are subject to its rights and obligations. Their claim to unrestricted grazing across the farm is unsupported by the evidence and is rejected. The application is dismissed, and the applicants are required to restrict...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Applicants required to restrict grazing to Camp 1, with access to Camp 2 only in exceptional circumstances and by agreement. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are required to restrict their animals for grazing purposes to the camp on which their houses are situated, being Camp 1. In exceptional circumstances and by agreement with the farm owner, the applicants may also graze their animals on Camp 2.