Senamela v Mokwana NO and Others (LCC05/2016) [2019] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2019)

Senamela v Mokwana NO and Others (LCC05/2016) [2019] ZALCC 8 (29 March 2019)

The court found the evidence of the plaintiff to be credible and unimpugned under cross-examination, accepting her version that she was threatened and instructed to leave the farm by the first and third defendants. The defendants' evidence, particularly that of Steve Mokwana, was found to be false and unreliable in key respects, including contradictory statements in affidavits and implausible explanations for their conduct. The fencing of the plaintiff's homestead and the interdict application regarding the burial were determined to be acts of intimidation intended to drive the plaintiff and her family off the farm. The court concluded that the plaintiff's departure from the farm was not...

Citation
[2019] ZALCC 8
Parties
Plaintiff: Mpuputlane Mathabatha Senamela; Defendant: Amos Stefaans Mokwana N.O.; Defendant: Mojasagage Sophie Mokwana N.O.; Defendant: Mpho Stephen Mokwana N.O.; Defendant: Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2019
Case Number
LCC05/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Trial on Voluntariness of Vacation
Outcome
The plaintiff's vacation of the farm was not voluntary; no order as to costs.
Judges
Barnes
Legal Topics
Labour Tenant Definition, Constructive Eviction, Land Reform Labour Tenants Act, Voluntary Vacation of Land, Burial Rights on Farm
Land and Property Labour Tenant Definition Constructive Eviction Land Reform Labour Tenants Act Voluntary Vacation of Land Burial Rights on Farm

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpuputlane Mathabatha Senamela

Plaintiff

Amos Stefaans Mokwana N.O.

Defendant

Mojasagage Sophie Mokwana N.O.

Defendant

Mpho Stephen Mokwana N.O.

Defendant

Director-General: Department of Rural Development and Land Reform

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Separation of Issues; Trial on Voluntariness of Vacation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff left the farm voluntarily in March 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the first and third defendants amounted to constructive eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff and her family qualify as labour tenants under the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the evidence of the plaintiff to be credible and unimpugned under cross-examination, accepting her version that she was threatened and instructed to leave the farm by the first and third defendants. The defendants' evidence, particularly that of Steve Mokwana, was found to be false and unreliable in key respects, including contradictory statements in affidavits and implausible explanations for their conduct. The fencing of the plaintiff's homestead and the interdict application regarding the burial were determined to be acts of intimidation intended to drive the plaintiff and her family off the farm. The court concluded that the plaintiff's departure from the farm was not...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's vacation of the farm was not voluntary; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's vacation of Portion 2 of the Farm Uitkyk 172, JS in Limpopo Province in March 2013 was not voluntary.
  • There is no order as to costs.