SA Baard Boerdery v Pofadder (LCC97R/04) [2004] ZALCC 20 (26 October 2004)

SA Baard Boerdery v Pofadder (LCC97R/04) [2004] ZALCC 20 (26 October 2004)

The Land Claims Court confirmed the eviction order but set aside the magistrate's order in part due to non-compliance with section 12 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The magistrate failed to specify two dates as required: one for the respondent to vacate and another for the execution of the eviction if the respondent failed to vacate. The Court determined these dates itself, ordering the respondent to vacate by 30 November 2004 and authorizing the sheriff to execute the eviction on or after 10 December 2004. The Court also found no special circumstances justifying a costs order and therefore made no order as to costs, in line with established precedent for social legislation...

Citation
[2004] ZALCC 20
Parties
Applicant: S A Baard Boerdery; Respondent: Grietjie Pofadder
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2004
Case Number
LCC97R/04
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order confirmed; magistrate's order set aside in part; respondent ordered to vacate by specified date; sheriff authorized to execute eviction if respondent fails to vacate; no order as to costs.
Judges
J Moloto
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Costs Award, Section 12 Compliance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Costs Award Section 12 Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S A Baard Boerdery

Applicant

Grietjie Pofadder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's eviction order complied with section 12 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
  2. 2 Whether costs should be awarded in eviction proceedings under social legislation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Land Claims Court confirmed the eviction order but set aside the magistrate's order in part due to non-compliance with section 12 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The magistrate failed to specify two dates as required: one for the respondent to vacate and another for the execution of the eviction if the respondent failed to vacate. The Court determined these dates itself, ordering the respondent to vacate by 30 November 2004 and authorizing the sheriff to execute the eviction on or after 10 December 2004. The Court also found no special circumstances justifying a costs order and therefore made no order as to costs, in line with established precedent for social legislation...

Court Disposition

Eviction order confirmed; magistrate's order set aside in part; respondent ordered to vacate by specified date; sheriff authorized to execute eviction if respondent fails to vacate; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The order of the magistrate dated 13 October 2004 is set aside in part.
  • The order evicting the respondent is confirmed.