Randt v Khaka and Others (LCC 67R/2015) [2015] ZALCC 11 (16 November 2015)

Randt v Khaka and Others (LCC 67R/2015) [2015] ZALCC 11 (16 November 2015)

The court found that the settlement agreement resolved a genuine dispute between the parties regarding the respondents’ continued occupation of the property. The agreement was reached by mutual consent, with the respondents legally represented and their attorney confirming the terms. The applicant undertook to build a new house and provide transport for the respondents, and the agreement was not contrary to public policy or the Constitution. The court noted practical concerns regarding the identification of the site and compliance with specifications but found these insufficient to prevent confirmation of the agreement. The order was varied to authorise the Sheriff to evict the...

Citation
[2015] ZALCC 11
Parties
Applicant: Barend Jakobus du Randt; Respondent: Keke Khaka; Respondent: Keke Khaka N.O.; Respondent: Sinazo Khaka; Respondent: Nomsa Khaka; Respondent: Noloko Khaka; Respondent: Keizar Khaka; Respondent: Nongazi Khaka; Respondent: Sakhisizwe Local Municipality; Respondent: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 November 2015
Case Number
LCC 67R/2015
Procedural Posture
Automatic Review / Referral From Magistrate’s Court for Confirmation of Eviction Order Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
Outcome
Settlement agreement and magistrate’s eviction order confirmed, subject to variation authorising the Sheriff to evict within seven days if respondents fail to vacate within fifteen days of completion of the new house.
Judges
Ngcukaitobi
Legal Topics
Eviction, Settlement Agreement, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Consent Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Settlement Agreement Extension of Security of Tenure Act Consent Order

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barend Jakobus du Randt

Applicant

Keke Khaka

Respondent

Keke Khaka N.O.

Respondent

Sinazo Khaka

Respondent

Nomsa Khaka

Respondent

Noloko Khaka

Respondent

Keizar Khaka

Respondent

Nongazi Khaka

Respondent

Sakhisizwe Local Municipality

Respondent

Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Review / Referral From Magistrate’s Court for Confirmation of Eviction Order Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement between the parties satisfies the requirements to be made an order of court.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction order complies with the Extension of Security of Tenure Act and constitutional principles.
  3. 3 Whether the practical implementation of the agreement is just and equitable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement resolved a genuine dispute between the parties regarding the respondents’ continued occupation of the property. The agreement was reached by mutual consent, with the respondents legally represented and their attorney confirming the terms. The applicant undertook to build a new house and provide transport for the respondents, and the agreement was not contrary to public policy or the Constitution. The court noted practical concerns regarding the identification of the site and compliance with specifications but found these insufficient to prevent confirmation of the agreement. The order was varied to authorise the Sheriff to evict the...

Court Disposition

Settlement agreement and magistrate’s eviction order confirmed, subject to variation authorising the Sheriff to evict within seven days if respondents fail to vacate within fifteen days of completion of the new house.

Orders

  • The settlement agreement and the order of the magistrate’s court granted on 6 August 2015 are confirmed, subject to the variation order below.
  • In the event that the respondents do not vacate the land, the Sheriff is hereby authorised to effect their eviction within seven days of the lapse of the period referred to in clauses 2.3 and 8 of the settlement agreement.