Rajah and Another v Balduzzi (076/2017) [2018] ZASCA 57 (16 May 2018)

Rajah and Another v Balduzzi (076/2017) [2018] ZASCA 57 (16 May 2018)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim for transfer of the property by the estate was not properly adjudicated under the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act, but rather fell under section 3 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, which provides a remedy for persons prevented from acquiring title due to racially discriminatory laws. The Land Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, and the High Court orders upholding prescription and res judicata were made without jurisdiction and on an incorrect legislative basis. The application for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal was granted in the interests of justice, considering the constitutional...

Citation
[2018] ZASCA 57
Parties
Appellant: Devanayagy Rajah; Appellant: Stanley Brasg N.O.; Respondent: Oreste Balduzzi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 May 2018
Case Number
076/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside; eviction action stayed pending Land Claims Court proceedings.
Judges
Navsa, Leach, Wallis, Mothle, Hughes
Legal Topics
Group Areas Act, Nominee Ownership, Restitution of Land Rights Act, Prescription, Eviction, Section 26 Constitution
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Group Areas Act Nominee Ownership Restitution of Land Rights Act Prescription Eviction +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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Devanayagy Rajah

Appellant

Stanley Brasg N.O.

Appellant

Oreste Balduzzi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registered owner of immovable property purchased in contravention of the Group Areas Act holds the property as nominee for the purchaser.
  2. 2 Whether the claim for transfer of property to the estate is prescribed under the Prescription Act or the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act.
  3. 3 Whether the Land Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction over claims based on nominee ownership under the Restitution of Land Rights Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the claim for transfer of the property by the estate was not properly adjudicated under the Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act, but rather fell under section 3 of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, which provides a remedy for persons prevented from acquiring title due to racially discriminatory laws. The Land Claims Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such claims, and the High Court orders upholding prescription and res judicata were made without jurisdiction and on an incorrect legislative basis. The application for condonation for late filing of leave to appeal was granted in the interests of justice, considering the constitutional...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court orders set aside; eviction action stayed pending Land Claims Court proceedings.

Orders

  • Condonation for late filing of leave to appeal is granted; appellants to pay costs of condonation application.
  • Leave to appeal against both High Court judgments is granted.