Pieters, J and Another v Stemmett, SC and Another (LCC 2022/139) [2023] ZALCC 4; [2023] 2 All SA 234 (LCC) (3 February 2023)

Pieters, J and Another v Stemmett, SC and Another (LCC 2022/139) [2023] ZALCC 4; [2023] 2 All SA 234 (LCC) (3 February 2023)

The court held that the property in question forms part of a township as defined by the Land Survey Act and relevant municipal planning laws, supported by the existence of a registered general plan and municipal control of public roads. The zoning of the property as 'Rural' does not equate to designation for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZALCC 4
Parties
Appellant: Pieters, J; Appellant: Pieters, C; Respondent: Stemmett, SC; Respondent: Stemmett, PG
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2023
Case Number
LCC 2022/139
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Decision on ESTA Declarator
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The Magistrate’s decision refusing the ESTA declarator is upheld.
Judges
Spilg, Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Statutory Interpretation, Municipal Zoning, Eviction Proceedings, Designation for Agricultural Purposes, Township Definition
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Extension of Security of Tenure Act Statutory Interpretation Municipal Zoning Eviction Proceedings Designation for Agricultural Purposes +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieters, J

Appellant

Pieters, C

Appellant

Stemmett, SC

Respondent

Stemmett, PG

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates’ Court Decision on ESTA Declarator

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether land zoned 'Rural' and subdivided under a general plan registered at the Deeds Registry constitutes a township for purposes of s 2(1) and s 29 of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the zoning of the property as 'Rural' equates to designation for agricultural purposes under ESTA.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants’ occupation of the property is governed by ESTA or PIE.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the property in question forms part of a township as defined by the Land Survey Act and relevant municipal planning laws, supported by the existence of a registered general plan and municipal control of public roads. The zoning of the property as 'Rural' does not equate to designation for agricultural purposes under ESTA, as rural zoning allows for both residential and agricultural use, but the property has always been used as a residential home and rated as such by the municipality. The factual evidence overwhelmingly shows no agricultural activity or designation. Therefore, the appellants’ occupation is not governed by ESTA but by PIE, and the Magistrate’s decision...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The Magistrate’s decision refusing the ESTA declarator is upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • It is declared that the land occupied by the appellants is excluded from the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 by reason of s 29 read with s 2(1) of that Act.