Thuthuka Farming v Mofokeng and Others (LCC55R/2009) [2010] ZALCC 6 (6 April 2010)

Thuthuka Farming v Mofokeng and Others (LCC55R/2009) [2010] ZALCC 6 (6 April 2010)

The Land Claims Court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for eviction under ESTA. There was no evidence of a lawful termination of the respondents' right of residence, nor was there proof that proper written notice to vacate was given. The notices attached to the application did not comply with the prescribed form and manner required by the regulations. The Magistrate's reliance on verbal termination and oral evidence was insufficient, and the applicant's belief that employment by the previous owner negated the respondents' rights was incorrect, as those rights are protected and binding on successors in title. The court concluded that the eviction...

Citation
[2010] ZALCC 6
Parties
Applicant: Thuthuka Farming; Respondent: Andries Mofokeng and Others
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2010
Case Number
LCC55R/2009
Procedural Posture
Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order set aside due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under ESTA.
Judges
MIA
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Termination of Right of Residence, Notice Requirements, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Termination of Right of Residence Notice Requirements Just and Equitable Eviction

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 5 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thuthuka Farming

Applicant

Andries Mofokeng and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Review / Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are occupiers in terms of section 8(1), 8(2), or 8(4) of ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' right of residence could be lawfully terminated.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was obliged to provide alternative accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Land Claims Court found that the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirements for eviction under ESTA. There was no evidence of a lawful termination of the respondents' right of residence, nor was there proof that proper written notice to vacate was given. The notices attached to the application did not comply with the prescribed form and manner required by the regulations. The Magistrate's reliance on verbal termination and oral evidence was insufficient, and the applicant's belief that employment by the previous owner negated the respondents' rights was incorrect, as those rights are protected and binding on successors in title. The court concluded that the eviction...

Court Disposition

Eviction order set aside due to non-compliance with statutory requirements under ESTA.

Orders

  • The order of the Magistrate in case number 173/07 is set aside.