Old Abland (Pty) Ltd v Hanekom and Others, Old Abland (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Others (LCC178/2016, LCC179/2016) [2017] ZALCC 27 (9 May 2017)

Old Abland (Pty) Ltd v Hanekom and Others, Old Abland (Pty) Ltd v Jacobs and Others (LCC178/2016, LCC179/2016) [2017] ZALCC 27 (9 May 2017)

The court found that the termination of the respondents' right of residence did not comply with the requirements of ESTA, specifically sections 8 and 9(2). The applicant failed to provide a valid notice of termination and omitted meaningful engagement, a crucial procedural step. The evidence showed that the respondents would be rendered homeless if evicted, as they lacked access to suitable alternative accommodation and did not qualify for government housing or home loans. The hardship to the respondents outweighed that of the applicant, who had no immediate or pressing need for the property and had previously attempted to lease it to the respondents. The court held that eviction under...

Citation
[2017] ZALCC 27
Parties
Applicant: Old Abland (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Anthea Hanekom; Respondent: Stuurman Hanekom; Respondent: Those occupying with, or under First Respondent Cottage No. 3 Topshell Park, Baden Powell Road, Lynedoch, Stellenbosch Unlawful Occupier; Respondent: Stellenbosch Municipality; Respondent: Department of Rural Development and Land; Respondent: Suzie-Ann Jacobs; Respondent: Lynedoch, Stellenbosch Unlawful Occupier
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2017
Case Number
LCC178/2016, LCC179/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Magistrates Court Eviction Orders
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; eviction application refused.
Judges
Poswa-Lerotholi, PM Canca
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Proceedings, Just and Equitable Eviction, Right to Adequate Housing, Meaningful Engagement, Termination of Right of Residence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Proceedings Just and Equitable Eviction Right to Adequate Housing Meaningful Engagement +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Old Abland (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Anthea Hanekom

Respondent

Stuurman Hanekom

Respondent

Those occupying with, or under First Respondent Cottage No. 3 Topshell Park, Baden Powell Road, Lynedoch, Stellenbosch Unlawful Occupier

Respondent

Stellenbosch Municipality

Respondent

Department of Rural Development and Land

Respondent

Suzie-Ann Jacobs

Respondent

Lynedoch, Stellenbosch Unlawful Occupier

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Magistrates Court Eviction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the respondents' right of residence complied with the requirements of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction order was just and equitable under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would be rendered homeless and lacked suitable alternative accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the termination of the respondents' right of residence did not comply with the requirements of ESTA, specifically sections 8 and 9(2). The applicant failed to provide a valid notice of termination and omitted meaningful engagement, a crucial procedural step. The evidence showed that the respondents would be rendered homeless if evicted, as they lacked access to suitable alternative accommodation and did not qualify for government housing or home loans. The hardship to the respondents outweighed that of the applicant, who had no immediate or pressing need for the property and had previously attempted to lease it to the respondents. The court held that eviction under...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; cross-appeal upheld; eviction application refused.

Orders

  • The appeals in case numbers LCC178/2016 and LCC179/2016 are dismissed.
  • The cross appeal succeeds.