Stephen v Asnath and Others (LCC 119/2024) [2025] ZALCC 17 (10 April 2025)
The court found that the first respondent, Malephi Asnath, does not qualify as an occupier under ESTA due to her income exceeding the statutory threshold. The termination of her right of residence was procedurally and substantively compliant with ESTA, and all required notices were served. The respondents' points in limine regarding notice and mediation were dismissed as unfounded. The court determined that the applicant is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation, as the municipality confirmed the respondent does not qualify for emergency housing and has sufficient income to secure her own accommodation. The applicant's offer of R25,000 towards relocation costs was deemed...
- Citation
- [2025] ZALCC 17
- Parties
- Applicant: Beaumont Brian Stephen; Respondent: Malephi Asnath; Respondent: The Occupiers of Portion 230 of the Farm Knopjeslaagte, 385 Registration Division J.R; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Mzwanele Nyhontso N.O. (in his capacity as the Member of the Executive Council for Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development)
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 10 April 2025
- Case Number
- LCC 119/2024
- Procedural Posture
- Eviction Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
- Outcome
- Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all those occupying through or under them; points in limine dismissed; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- Ncube
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction, Notice of Termination, Alternative Accommodation, Compensation for Improvements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Beaumont Brian Stephen
Applicant
Malephi Asnath
Respondent
The Occupiers of Portion 230 of the Farm Knopjeslaagte, 385 Registration Division J.R
Respondent
The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Mzwanele Nyhontso N.O. (in his capacity as the Member of the Executive Council for Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to protection under ESTA as occupiers.
- 2 Whether the termination of the right of residence and eviction notice complied with statutory requirements.
- 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the first respondent, Malephi Asnath, does not qualify as an occupier under ESTA due to her income exceeding the statutory threshold. The termination of her right of residence was procedurally and substantively compliant with ESTA, and all required notices were served. The respondents' points in limine regarding notice and mediation were dismissed as unfounded. The court determined that the applicant is not obliged to provide alternative accommodation, as the municipality confirmed the respondent does not qualify for emergency housing and has sufficient income to secure her own accommodation. The applicant's offer of R25,000 towards relocation costs was deemed...
Court Disposition
Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all those occupying through or under them; points in limine dismissed; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The respondents' points in limine are dismissed.
- The first and second respondents and all those occupying through or under them are ordered to vacate Portion 230 of the farm Knopjeslaagte 385 Registration Division JR 230 Monument Road Centurion on or before 25 April 2025.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment