Snyman and Others v Sehemo and Others (LCC 57R/2010) [2011] ZALCC 5 (24 February 2011)

Snyman and Others v Sehemo and Others (LCC 57R/2010) [2011] ZALCC 5 (24 February 2011)

The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the defendants had committed a fundamental breach of the relationship with the owner as required by section 10(1)(c) of ESTA. The evidence did not establish that the defendants' conduct, including participation in a strike, property damage, or legal action to enforce rights, amounted to a breach that could not be remedied. The court emphasized that bringing legal proceedings to enforce rights under ESTA cannot be regarded as a fundamental breach. The only substantiated evidence of wrongful conduct was minor property damage, which was addressed and remedied between the parties. The trustees of the current owner had deliberately...

Citation
[2011] ZALCC 5
Parties
Plaintiff: Manus Snyman; Plaintiff: Petronella Elizabeth von Molkte N.O.; Plaintiff: Johan von Strauss von Molkte N.O.; Defendant: Abram Sehemo; Defendant: Chrisjan Hoering; Defendant: Israel Rita; Defendant: William Mologtso; Defendant: George Mologetso
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2011
Case Number
LCC 57R/2010
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Eviction Order Under ESTA
Outcome
Eviction order and costs order set aside; plaintiffs' claim for eviction dismissed.
Judges
C. E. Loots
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Proceedings, Fundamental Breach of Relationship, Just and Equitable Eviction, Termination of Right of Residence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Proceedings Fundamental Breach of Relationship Just and Equitable Eviction Termination of Right of Residence

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Manus Snyman

Plaintiff

Petronella Elizabeth von Molkte N.O.

Plaintiff

Johan von Strauss von Molkte N.O.

Plaintiff

Abram Sehemo

Defendant

Chrisjan Hoering

Defendant

Israel Rita

Defendant

William Mologtso

Defendant

George Mologetso

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review of Eviction Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants committed a fundamental breach of the relationship with the owner as required by section 10(1)(c) of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for eviction under section 9(2) and section 10 of ESTA were met.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate's findings and the eviction order should be confirmed or set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate erred in concluding that the defendants had committed a fundamental breach of the relationship with the owner as required by section 10(1)(c) of ESTA. The evidence did not establish that the defendants' conduct, including participation in a strike, property damage, or legal action to enforce rights, amounted to a breach that could not be remedied. The court emphasized that bringing legal proceedings to enforce rights under ESTA cannot be regarded as a fundamental breach. The only substantiated evidence of wrongful conduct was minor property damage, which was addressed and remedied between the parties. The trustees of the current owner had deliberately...

Court Disposition

Eviction order and costs order set aside; plaintiffs' claim for eviction dismissed.

Orders

  • The eviction order granted by the magistrate is set aside.
  • The order as to costs is set aside.