Sundowners by Stellenbosch BK v Peinke and Another (LCC130R/07) [2007] ZALCC 23 (6 December 2007)
The eviction order granted by the Stellenbosch Magistrates' Court cannot be confirmed due to several procedural defects. The applicant failed to prove locus standi as owner or person in control of the property, which is necessary for issuing notices under the Act. There is no evidence that the respondents' right of...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] ZALCC 23
- Parties
- Applicant: Sundowners by Stellenbosch BK; Respondent: Mike Peinke; Respondent: Craig Summers
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- LCC130R/07
- Procedural Posture
- Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
- Outcome
- Eviction order set aside; matter remitted for further proceedings subject to statutory compliance.
- Judges
- Gildenhuys
- Legal Topics
- Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Locus Standi, Service of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sundowners by Stellenbosch BK
Applicant
Mike Peinke
Respondent
Craig Summers
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant proved locus standi as owner or person in control of the property.
- 2 Whether the respondents' right of residence was properly cancelled in accordance with section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
- 3 Whether the required notices under section 9(2)(d) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were properly served, including notice to the Department of Land Affairs.
Ratio Decidendi
The eviction order granted by the Stellenbosch Magistrates' Court cannot be confirmed due to several procedural defects. The applicant failed to prove locus standi as owner or person in control of the property, which is necessary for issuing notices under the Act. There is no evidence that the respondents' right of residence was cancelled in accordance with section 8 of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. Furthermore, there is no proof that notice of the eviction application was served on the Department of Land Affairs as required by section 9(2)(d)(iii). These failures render the eviction order invalid, and the matter must be remitted for proper compliance with statutory requirements.
Court Disposition
Eviction order set aside; matter remitted for further proceedings subject to statutory compliance.
Orders
- The eviction order of the Magistrate: Stellenbosch dated 15 November 2007 is hereby set aside.
- The matter is remitted to the Magistrates' Court for further handling as follows: the applicant may supplement its application by way of an additional affidavit no later than 18 January 2008.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN DIE GRONDEISEHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
RANDBURG
SAAKNOMMER: LCC130R/07
Beslis op : 6 Desember 2007
In die saak tussen:
SUNDOWNERS BY STELLENBOSCH BK Applikant
en
MIKE PEINKE Eerste Respondent
CRAIG SUMMERS Tweede Respondent
UITSPRAAK
Gildenhuys R
[1] Hierdie saak kom voor my op outomatiese hersiening ingevolge artikel 19(3) van die Wet op Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg, Wet 62 van 1997 (“die Verblyfregwet”).
[2] Die applikant het ‘n huis op Gedeelte 35 van die plaas Nooitgedacht 74, Stellenbosch, aan die respondente verhuur. Die respondente het agter geraak met hul huurgeld. Die partye het toe ooreengekom dat die huurkontrak op 28 Februarie 2007 tot ‘n einde sal kom en die respondente die huis sal ontruim. Die respondente het nie die huis ontruim nie.
[3] Die applikant het in die Landdroshof van Stellenbosch ‘n uitsettingsaansoek ingevolge die Verblyfregwet teen die respondente gebring. Die respondente het nie die saak verdedig nie en ‘n uitsettingsbevel is by verstek verkry.
[4] Die aansoek aan die Landdroshof gaan mank aan verskeie gebreke, wat meebring dat die uitsettingsbevel nie bekragtig kan word nie.
[5] Die locus standi van die applikant is nie bewys nie. Daar is geen bewering of bewys dat die applikant die eienaar of persoon in beheer van die plaas is nie. Die vereiste kennisgewings kragters artikel 9(2)(d) van die Verblyfregwet mag slegs deur ‘n eienaar of persoon in beheer gegee word.
[6] Dit is nie bevestig dat die okkupasiereg van die respondente ooreenkomstig artikel 8 van die Verblyfregwet gekanselleer is nie. Gevolglik wil dit voorkom dat daar nie aan artikel 9(2)(a) van die Verblyfregwet voldoen is nie. Kyk in dié verband na die saak van Landbounavorsingsraad v Klaassen 2005 (3) SA 410 (LCC), waarin daar soos volg beslis is (op 416C-E):
“It would seem that a specific cancellation of an occupier’s ‘right of residence’ is required under s 9(2)(a), even where the agreement from which the right is derived was cancelled, or has expired by the effluxion of its time. Consent to an occupier to reside on land may only be terminated in accordance with the provisions of s 8(1) or (2) of the Tenure Act. If the underlying contract containing the consent expired or was cancelled but its termination does not comply with any or the norms of s 8(1) or (2) (for example, where the clause allowing the cancellation is unfair), the consent to reside will continue by operation of law, even though the contract containing the consent came to an end.”
[7] Daar is geen bewys voor my dat daar aan die bepalings van artikel 9(2)(d)(iii) van die Verblyfregwet, wat kennis van die uitsettingsaansoek op die Departement van Grondsake vereis, voldoen is nie.
[8] Vir bostaande redes maak ek die volgende bevel:
Die uitsettingsbevel van die Landdros: Stellenbosch gedateer 15 November 2007 word hiermee ter syde gestel;
Die saak word na die Landdroshof terugverwys, om soos volg daarmee te handel:
Die applikant mag sy aansoek teen nie later nie as 18 Januarie 2008 deur ‘n aanvullende eedsverklaring aanvul;
Nadat die aansoek aldus aangevul is, kan die saak vir heroorweging deur die Landdros, herplaas word;
‘n afskrif van enige aanvullende eedsverklaring tesame met ‘n kennisgewing van plasing vir die heroorweging van die aansoek,
moet op die respondente deur die balju beteken word.
c. Enige nuwe uitsettingsbevel wat die Landdros: Stellenbosch mag maak, is onderhewig aan hersiening deur hierdie Hof.
______________
A GILDENHUYS
JUDGE OF THE LAND CLAIMS COURT