Rampai v Claasen (LCC98/2019) [2019] ZALCC 26 (17 October 2019)

Rampai v Claasen (LCC98/2019) [2019] ZALCC 26 (17 October 2019)

The court found that the applicant's attorney had personal knowledge of the facts and was duly authorised to depose to the founding affidavit, with the applicant confirming instructions in reply. The respondent's contention that the relief sought was final was rejected, as the notice of motion and affidavit clearly sought interim relief pending finalisation. On the merits, the court held that the respondent's chosen remedy under section 7(1) of ESTA was inappropriate in the circumstances, as the applicant had longstanding occupation and grazing rights on the farm, and the respondent had other legal remedies available if he believed the land was being overgrazed. The requirements for an...

Citation
[2019] ZALCC 26
Parties
Applicant: Molibeli Azael Rampai; Respondent: Johan Daniel Claasen
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2019
Case Number
LCC98/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Urgent Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is interdicted and restrained from removing the applicant's livestock pursuant to the section 7(1) notice. No order as to costs.
Judges
M.P Canca
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Interdict, Urgent Relief, Removal of Livestock
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Interdict Urgent Relief Removal of Livestock

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molibeli Azael Rampai

Applicant

Johan Daniel Claasen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Urgent Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is entitled to remove the applicant's livestock from the farm pursuant to a section 7(1) notice under ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim relief restraining such removal.
  3. 3 Whether the founding affidavit constitutes inadmissible hearsay evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's attorney had personal knowledge of the facts and was duly authorised to depose to the founding affidavit, with the applicant confirming instructions in reply. The respondent's contention that the relief sought was final was rejected, as the notice of motion and affidavit clearly sought interim relief pending finalisation. On the merits, the court held that the respondent's chosen remedy under section 7(1) of ESTA was inappropriate in the circumstances, as the applicant had longstanding occupation and grazing rights on the farm, and the respondent had other legal remedies available if he believed the land was being overgrazed. The requirements for an...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is interdicted and restrained from removing the applicant's livestock pursuant to the section 7(1) notice. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from removing or causing to be removed by any other person, the cattle and sheep belonging to the applicant kept on the farm Elandsnek, District Reitz, Free State Province, pursuant to the notice issued in terms of Section 7(1) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act,...
  • No order as to costs.