Skosana and Others v Jose and Another (LCC 41/2024) [2025] ZALCC 12 (26 February 2025)

Skosana and Others v Jose and Another (LCC 41/2024) [2025] ZALCC 12 (26 February 2025)

The applicants failed to establish that they were occupiers as defined by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, lacking evidence of residence on the farm at the relevant time and failing to disclose income below the prescribed threshold. The evidence, including cell phone records, voter registration, and witness affidavits, supports the respondent's contention that the applicants had not resided on the farm for several years prior to the demolition. The standing protection order lawfully prohibited the applicants from entering the property, and they did not challenge it before seeking restoration. The disputes of fact regarding residence are material and cannot be resolved on the...

Citation
[2025] ZALCC 12
Parties
Applicant: Zimkhona John Skosana; Applicant: Abram Skosana; Applicant: Skosana Family; Respondent: Ferreira Jose; Respondent: Magistrate BHM Mashele NO; Respondent: The Minister: Department of Agriculture and Land Reform; Respondent: Commission on Restitution of Land Rights; Respondent: Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality; Respondent: Ndebele Traditional Council
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2025
Case Number
LCC 41/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Part a (restoration of Residence); Part B (review of Protection Order) Adjourned Sine Die
Outcome
Application for restoration of residence dismissed; interim relief discharged; condonation granted; no order as to costs.
Judges
Ncube
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Restoration of Possession, Urgent Interdict, Protection Order Review, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Restoration of Possession Urgent Interdict Protection Order Review Dispute of Fact

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zimkhona John Skosana

Applicant

Abram Skosana

Applicant

Skosana Family

Applicant

Ferreira Jose

Respondent

Magistrate BHM Mashele NO

Respondent

The Minister: Department of Agriculture and Land Reform

Respondent

Commission on Restitution of Land Rights

Respondent

Elias Motsoaledi Local Municipality

Respondent

Ndebele Traditional Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Part a (restoration of Residence); Part B (review of Protection Order) Adjourned Sine Die

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants qualify as occupiers under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were in peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the farm at the time of demolition.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent unlawfully deprived the applicants of possession or occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that they were occupiers as defined by the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, lacking evidence of residence on the farm at the relevant time and failing to disclose income below the prescribed threshold. The evidence, including cell phone records, voter registration, and witness affidavits, supports the respondent's contention that the applicants had not resided on the farm for several years prior to the demolition. The standing protection order lawfully prohibited the applicants from entering the property, and they did not challenge it before seeking restoration. The disputes of fact regarding residence are material and cannot be resolved on the...

Court Disposition

Application for restoration of residence dismissed; interim relief discharged; condonation granted; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for condonation by the first respondent is granted.
  • The Rule Nisi granted against the first respondent on 20 March 2024 is discharged.