Ngomane NO and Others v Domar Boerdery Belange (Pty) Ltd and Others (30542/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 46 (12 February 2013)

Ngomane NO and Others v Domar Boerdery Belange (Pty) Ltd and Others (30542/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 46 (12 February 2013)

The court found that no valid and enforceable lease agreement was concluded between the First Respondent and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. The purported lease agreement was not signed by an authorized official, and the insertion of 'lessor' next to Mr Khoza's signature was found to be misleading and possibly fraudulent. The First Respondent's reliance on estoppel was rejected, as estoppel cannot validate an invalid act, and no misrepresentation was made by the Applicants or their agents. The Applicants, as owners, are entitled to the eviction of the First Respondent, who failed to establish any lawful defence for its continued occupation of the property.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Sandile Godfrey Ngomane N.O.; Applicant: Stefaan Sithole N.O.; Applicant: Meshack Thembinkosi Silinda N.O.; Respondent: Domar Boerdery Belange (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Government of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: Chief Land Claims Commissioner; Respondent: Chief Director: Department of Rural Development, Mpumalanga Province
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2013
Case Number
30542/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application granted. The First Respondent and all persons occupying through it are ordered to vacate the property forthwith. Costs awarded to the Applicants, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
P C Van der Byl
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Eviction, Lease Agreement Validity, Estoppel, Alienation of State Land, Land Restitution
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rei Vindicatio Eviction Lease Agreement Validity Estoppel Alienation of State Land Land Restitution

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandile Godfrey Ngomane N.O.

Applicant

Stefaan Sithole N.O.

Applicant

Meshack Thembinkosi Silinda N.O.

Applicant

Domar Boerdery Belange (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Government of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Chief Land Claims Commissioner

Respondent

Chief Director: Department of Rural Development, Mpumalanga Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid and enforceable lease agreement was concluded between the First Respondent and the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
  2. 2 Whether the First Respondent can rely on estoppel to validate an otherwise invalid lease agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicants, as trustees and owners, are entitled to the eviction of the First Respondent from the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no valid and enforceable lease agreement was concluded between the First Respondent and the Government of the Republic of South Africa. The purported lease agreement was not signed by an authorized official, and the insertion of 'lessor' next to Mr Khoza's signature was found to be misleading and possibly fraudulent. The First Respondent's reliance on estoppel was rejected, as estoppel cannot validate an invalid act, and no misrepresentation was made by the Applicants or their agents. The Applicants, as owners, are entitled to the eviction of the First Respondent, who failed to establish any lawful defence for its continued occupation of the property.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The First Respondent and all persons occupying through it are ordered to vacate the property forthwith. Costs awarded to the Applicants, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The First Respondent, together with all persons occupying through it the property known as Portion 53 of the Farm Tenbosch 162 JU, is ordered to vacate the property forthwith or on such later date as the Applicants may in their sole discretion determine.
  • Should the First Respondent and any such persons fail to vacate as directed, the Sheriff of this Court, Barberton or any other Sheriff with jurisdiction is authorized and enjoined to evict them, with the assistance of the South African Police Service if necessary.