Ramohloki and Others v Raiden (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC282/2017B) [2020] ZALCC 31 (12 November 2020)

Ramohloki and Others v Raiden (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC282/2017B) [2020] ZALCC 31 (12 November 2020)

The respondents were not entitled to enforce the interim court order by removing and impounding the applicants' cattle without approaching the court for relief. The proper procedure for enforcing compliance with a court order is through the civil contempt process, not self-help. Section 7(1) of ESTA does not confer a right to impound cattle in circumstances where the parties are in dispute and litigation is ongoing regarding the very issue of alleged excess animals. Furthermore, the requirements of section 7(1) were not met, as the notice was ineffective (referring to only 8 cattle while 13 were impounded) and there was no pleading or proof of compliance with the applicable impoundment...

Citation
[2020] ZALCC 31
Parties
Applicant: Mmasane Ramohloki; Applicant: Nyefolo Mofokeng; Applicant: Tjotjo Mofokeng; Applicant: Dikomo Mofokeng; Respondent: Radien (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Phillip Fourie Scheepers; Respondent: Ntelane Pound Master; Respondent: NJH General Dealer (Pty) Ltd T/A Mantsupa Animal Pound Ladybrand
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2020
Case Number
LCC282/2017B
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Restoration of Possession and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents' removal and impoundment of the applicants' cattle is declared unlawful. Restoration of possession and costs awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Cowen
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Civil Contempt, Restoration of Possession, Rule of Law, Constitutional Property Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Spoliation Extension of Security of Tenure Act Civil Contempt Restoration of Possession Rule of Law +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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mmasane Ramohloki

Applicant

Nyefolo Mofokeng

Applicant

Tjotjo Mofokeng

Applicant

Dikomo Mofokeng

Applicant

Radien (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Phillip Fourie Scheepers

Respondent

Ntelane Pound Master

Respondent

NJH General Dealer (Pty) Ltd T/A Mantsupa Animal Pound Ladybrand

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Restoration of Possession and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were entitled to enforce the interim court order without approaching the court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were entitled to rely on section 7(1) of ESTA to remove and impound the applicants' cattle.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 7(1) of ESTA were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents were not entitled to enforce the interim court order by removing and impounding the applicants' cattle without approaching the court for relief. The proper procedure for enforcing compliance with a court order is through the civil contempt process, not self-help. Section 7(1) of ESTA does not confer a right to impound cattle in circumstances where the parties are in dispute and litigation is ongoing regarding the very issue of alleged excess animals. Furthermore, the requirements of section 7(1) were not met, as the notice was ineffective (referring to only 8 cattle while 13 were impounded) and there was no pleading or proof of compliance with the applicable impoundment...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents' removal and impoundment of the applicants' cattle is declared unlawful. Restoration of possession and costs awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents' conduct removing and impounding the applicants' 13 cattle from the property is declared unlawful.
  • The first and second respondents are directed to restore the applicants to possession of their cattle within 2 days of the court order.