Thepanyega N O and Others v Letsoalo and Others (73/2021) [2022] ZASCA 30 (24 March 2022)

Thepanyega N O and Others v Letsoalo and Others (73/2021) [2022] ZASCA 30 (24 March 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' right to graze livestock on the farm was based on a valid oral agreement with the appellants, which had not been unequivocally cancelled prior to the institution of proceedings. The appellants failed to establish that the agreement had been terminated or that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 30
Parties
Appellant: Mashao John Thepanyega N O; Appellant: Ephraim Setlabane Ramohlale N O; Appellant: Lesole Johannes Tepanyekga N O; Appellant: Madumetsa Solomon Machete N O; Appellant: Mosima Jeaneta Baloyi N O; Appellant: Kgobudi Jackson Mankga N O; Appellant: Ngwako Frans Mamaribe N O; Appellant: Ngaletjane Claas Ramaphoko N O; Appellant: Pheeha Frans Ramotlhale N O; Appellant: Chippa Daniel Ramohlale N O; Appellant: Reke Peggy Dikgale N O; Appellant: Mosebjadi Isabel Dikgale N O; Respondent: Herman Letsoalo; Respondent: Seja Letsoalo; Respondent: Frans Kwete Ramotihane
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Case Number
73/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo Division of the High Court, Polokwane
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Saldulker, Zondi, Hughes, Musi, Smith
Legal Topics
Eviction, Oral Agreement, Interdict, Termination of Contractual Rights
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Oral Agreement Interdict Termination of Contractual Rights

Source-derived case record

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashao John Thepanyega N O

Appellant

Ephraim Setlabane Ramohlale N O

Appellant

Lesole Johannes Tepanyekga N O

Appellant

Madumetsa Solomon Machete N O

Appellant

Mosima Jeaneta Baloyi N O

Appellant

Kgobudi Jackson Mankga N O

Appellant

Ngwako Frans Mamaribe N O

Appellant

Ngaletjane Claas Ramaphoko N O

Appellant

Pheeha Frans Ramotlhale N O

Appellant

Chippa Daniel Ramohlale N O

Appellant

Reke Peggy Dikgale N O

Appellant

Mosebjadi Isabel Dikgale N O

Appellant

Herman Letsoalo

Respondent

Seja Letsoalo

Respondent

Frans Kwete Ramotihane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Limpopo Division of the High Court, Polokwane

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents had a right to graze their livestock on the farm at the time of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had unequivocally cancelled the oral grazing agreement before launching eviction proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the appellants established a clear right and its infringement to justify a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondents' right to graze livestock on the farm was based on a valid oral agreement with the appellants, which had not been unequivocally cancelled prior to the institution of proceedings. The appellants failed to establish that the agreement had been terminated or that their right to exclude the respondents had accrued. The court found that the appellants did not suffer irreparable harm and had alternative remedies available, such as claiming damages or cancelling the agreement. The high court was correct in finding that the magistrate's court lacked jurisdiction and that the appellants did not make out a case for an interdict. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.