Oosthuizen v Lombard (2520/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 4 (4 February 2013)

Oosthuizen v Lombard (2520/2012) [2013] ZAFSHC 4 (4 February 2013)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has withdrawn any permission for the respondent to occupy it. The respondent failed to exercise the written option to repurchase the property within the stipulated three-year period, and any alleged oral extension or oral option is invalid under the Alienation of Land Act, which requires such agreements to be in writing. The respondent's continued occupation is therefore unlawful. The court considered the respondent's long-standing occupation and family history but found no legally relevant circumstances justifying continued occupation. The respondent owns other farms in the vicinity and did not demonstrate a lack of alternative...

Citation
[2013] ZAFSHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Robert Oosthuizen; Respondent: Jacobus Lombard
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2013
Case Number
2520/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondent and all persons occupying through him; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
C van Zyl, R
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Option Contract, Statutory Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Option Contract Statutory Requirements

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Oosthuizen

Applicant

Jacobus Lombard

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's occupation of the property is unlawful under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  2. 2 Whether any valid option contract or oral agreement entitles the respondent to remain on the property.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has withdrawn any permission for the respondent to occupy it. The respondent failed to exercise the written option to repurchase the property within the stipulated three-year period, and any alleged oral extension or oral option is invalid under the Alienation of Land Act, which requires such agreements to be in writing. The respondent's continued occupation is therefore unlawful. The court considered the respondent's long-standing occupation and family history but found no legally relevant circumstances justifying continued occupation. The respondent owns other farms in the vicinity and did not demonstrate a lack of alternative...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondent and all persons occupying through him; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent's occupation of the property known as Portions 1 and 2 of the Farm Weltevreden 238, District Frankfort, including the remaining extent, is unlawful.
  • The respondent and all persons occupying through or with his consent, who do not have another lawful right to be present, must vacate the property by 31 May 2013.