Trustess van Linmar Trust and Another v De Witt and Another (LCC46r/03) [2003] ZALCC 33 (17 June 2003)

Trustess van Linmar Trust and Another v De Witt and Another (LCC46r/03) [2003] ZALCC 33 (17 June 2003)

The court found that the settlement agreement reached between the parties was fair and did not waive or limit any of the respondents' rights under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The Magistrate's order was confirmed, subject to amendments to the dates for vacating the property and carrying out the eviction. The respondents were ordered to vacate the property on or before 19 June 2003, and if they failed to do so, eviction could be carried out on 30 June 2003.

Citation
[2003] ZALCC 33
Parties
Applicant: Die Trustees van Linmar Trust; Applicant: Martin Holand N.O.; Respondent: Pieter Hugo De Witt; Respondent: Elzette De Witt; Respondent: Anna Susana Elizabeth De Witt
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2003
Case Number
LCC46r/03
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Outcome
Magistrate's order confirmed with amendments to the dates for vacating and eviction.
Judges
F C Bam
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Order, Settlement Agreement, Automatic Review
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Order Settlement Agreement Automatic Review

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Die Trustees van Linmar Trust

Applicant

Martin Holand N.O.

Applicant

Pieter Hugo De Witt

Respondent

Elzette De Witt

Respondent

Anna Susana Elizabeth De Witt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Automatic Review Under Section 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement reached between the parties is fair and does not waive or limit the respondents' rights under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction order granted by the Magistrate should be confirmed or amended.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the settlement agreement reached between the parties was fair and did not waive or limit any of the respondents' rights under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The Magistrate's order was confirmed, subject to amendments to the dates for vacating the property and carrying out the eviction. The respondents were ordered to vacate the property on or before 19 June 2003, and if they failed to do so, eviction could be carried out on 30 June 2003.

Court Disposition

Magistrate's order confirmed with amendments to the dates for vacating and eviction.

Orders

  • The respondents are to vacate the property on or before 19 June 2003.
  • If the respondents have not vacated the land on the date contemplated above, the eviction may be carried out on 30 June 2003.