Trustees van die Molteno Trust v Arendorf and Others (LCC 36R/03) [2003] ZALCC 31 (23 May 2003)
- Citation
- [2003] ZALCC 31
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- A Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC 36R/03
More details
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Panel
- A Gildenhuys
- Case number
- LCC 36R/03
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the magistrate's eviction order was correct and fair in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. However, due to the respondents' particular circumstances and the fact that the original date for vacating the property had already passed, the court exercised its discretion to extend the period for vacating the property. The court confirmed the eviction order with amendments to the dates, granting the respondents additional time to vacate and specifying the new dates for eviction and enforcement.
Court disposition
Eviction order confirmed with amendments to the dates for vacating and enforcement.
Orders
- The date by which the respondents must vacate the house is changed from 30 April 2003 to 30 June 2003.
- The date from which eviction may occur if the respondents fail to vacate is changed from 5 May 2003 to 2 July 2003.
- Except for these amendments, the magistrate's order of 17 March 2003 is confirmed.
02
Material facts
Parties
Trustees van die Molteno Trust
Applicant Counsel: Miller Bosnian Le RonxArendorf, H
Respondent Counsel: JM GeyserArendorf, G
Respondent Counsel: JM GeyserArendorf, J
Respondent Counsel: JM Geyser03
Procedural history
Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review of Magistrate's Eviction Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the eviction order granted by the magistrate was correct and fair under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
- 02
Whether the respondents should be granted additional time to vacate the property given their circumstances.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought confirmation of the eviction order granted by the magistrate, arguing that all statutory requirements under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met and that the respondents had no lawful right to remain on the property.
- Respondent
- The respondents did not dispute the eviction order but requested more time to vacate the property due to their particular circumstances and the fact that the original deadline had already passed.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997
An eviction order under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act must be fair and consider the circumstances of the occupiers, including the provision of adequate time to vacate.
- 02
Section 19(3) Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997
Automatic review of magistrate's eviction orders ensures compliance with statutory requirements and fairness to affected parties.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the magistrate's eviction order was correct and fair in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. However, due to the respondents' particular circumstances and the fact that the original date for vacating the property had already passed, the court exercised its discretion to extend the period for vacating the property. The court confirmed the eviction order with amendments to the dates, granting the respondents additional time to vacate and specifying the new dates for eviction and enforcement.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the delay in the probation officer's report did not affect the correctness of the magistrate's decision.
- The court emphasized the importance of considering the occupiers' circumstances when determining the timing of eviction orders.
Court disposition
Eviction order confirmed with amendments to the dates for vacating and enforcement.
- The date by which the respondents must vacate the house is changed from 30 April 2003 to 30 June 2003.
- The date from which eviction may occur if the respondents fail to vacate is changed from 5 May 2003 to 2 July 2003.
- Except for these amendments, the magistrate's order of 17 March 2003 is confirmed.
Source and reliance status
Land Claims Court
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Land Claims Court
Judgment
IN DIE GRONDEISEHOF VAN SUID-AFRIKA
RANDBURG SAAK NOMMER: LCC 36R/03
In kamers: GILDENHUYS R LANDDROSHOF SAAKNOMMER: 588/02
Besluit op: 23 Mei 2003
In die hersienings aansoek van:
DIE TRUSTEES VAN DIE MOLTENO TRUST Applikant
en
ARENDORF, H Eerste Respondent
ARENDORF, G Tweede Respondent
ARENDORF, J Derde Respondent
UITSPRAAK
[1] Die Landdros: Grabouw het op 17 Maart 2003 'n uitsettings bevel teen die respondente gemaak. Hierdie bevel dien voor my op outomatiese
hersiening ingevolge die bepalings van artikel 19(3) van die Wet op Uitbreiding van Sekerheid van Verblyfreg, 1997 ("die Wet").
[2] Daar was *n proefbeampteverslag aangevra ingevolge artikel 19(3) van die Wet. 'n Verslag was voorberei deur Mnr L Beerwinkel, 'n Esta-beampte in diens van die Departement van Grondsake. Weens 'n misverstand aan die kant van die Departement het die verslag die Landdros nie bereik voordat hy sy uitsettingsbevel verleen het nie. Die Departement het die verslag toe na hierdie Hof gestuur, en dit het my bereik voordat ek die hersiening afgehandel het. Ek het die inhoud van die verslag oorweeg. Na my oordeel sou die Landdos nie 'n ander gevolgtreking bereik het indien hy die verslag betyds ter hand gehad het nie.
[3] Ek is van mening dat die uitspraak van die Landdros korrek is en dat die uitsettingsbevel billik is. Die besondere omstandighede waarin die Respondente verkeer regverdig egter, in my oordeel, dat meer tyd aan hulle verleen moet word om die plaas te verlaat. Die datum voor wanneer hulle ingevolge die bevel van die Landdros die plaas moes verlaat het, is in elk geval reeds verby. [4] Die volgende bevel word gemaak: die datum voor wanneer die respondente die huis moet ontruim (soos vervat in paragrawe 1 en 4 van die Landdros se bevel) word verander vanaf 30 April 2003 na 30 Junie 2003;
die datum vanaf wanneer uitsetting mag geskied indien die respondente versuim om die huis te ontruim (soos vervat in paragraaf 4 van die Landdros se bevel), word verander vanaf 5 Mei 2003 na 2 Julie 2003; en
behalwe vir die wysigings kragtens paragrawe (a) en (b) van hierdie bevel, word die Landdros se bevel van 17 Maart 2003 hiermee bekragtig.
REGTER
A GILDENHUYS Prokureurs vir die Applikant: Miller Bosnian Le Ronx, Somerset-Wes. Prokureurs vir die Respondente: JM Geyser, Stellenbosch.
[3] Ek is van mening dat die uitspraak van die Landdros korrek is en dat die uitsettingsbevel billik is. Die besondere omstandighede waarin die Respondente verkeer regverdig egter, in my oordeel, dat meer tyd aan hulle verleen moet word om die plaas te verlaat. Die datum voor wanneer hulle ingevolge die bevel van die Landdros die plaas moes verlaat het, is in elk geval reeds verby.
[4] Die volgende bevel word gemaak:
die datum voor wanneer die respondente die huis moet ontruim (soos vervat in paragrawe 1 en 4 van die Landdros se bevel) word verander vanaf 30 April 2003 na 30 Junie 2003;
die datum vanaf wanneer uitsetting mag geskied indien die respondente versuim om die huis te ontruim (soos vervat in paragraaf 4 van die Landdros se bevel), word verander vanaf 5 Mei 2003 na 2 Julie 2003; en
behalwe vir die wysigings kragtens paragrawe (a) en (b) van hierdie bevel, word die Landdros se bevel van 17 Maart 2003 hiermee bekragtig.
REGTER
A GILDENHUYS
Prokureurs vir die Applikant:
Miller Bosnian Le Ronx, Somerset-Wes.
Prokureurs vir die Respondente: JM Geyser, Stellenbosch.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.