Tsotetsi and Others v Raubenheimer N.O and Others (LCC140/2020) [2021] ZALCC 2; 2021 (5) SA 293 (LCC) (18 January 2021)

Tsotetsi and Others v Raubenheimer N.O and Others (LCC140/2020) [2021] ZALCC 2; 2021 (5) SA 293 (LCC) (18 January 2021)

The Land Claims Court held that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1)(b) of ESTA to grant interdicts and declaratory orders in matters sufficiently connected to ESTA, including disputes over grazing rights of occupiers. The orders granted by the Magistrate were found to be mandatory and prohibitory interdicts in terms of ESTA, as the right to keep cattle was integrally connected to the Appellants' occupation and use of the land. The evidence established severe overgrazing of the allocated area, justifying the removal of cattle for rehabilitation. The Appellants failed to establish any contractual right to alternative grazing or to dispute the factual basis for the...

Citation
[2021] ZALCC 2
Parties
Appellant: Tsediso Phillip Tsotetsi; Appellant: Andries Tsotetsi; Appellant: Nthabiseng Tsotetsi; Respondent: Willem Jonathan Raubenheimer N.O.; Respondent: Helgrad Petrus Raubenheimer N.O.; Respondent: Francois Cooper N.O.
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2021
Case Number
LCC140/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Order Under ESTA
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of the first and second orders; appeal upheld in respect of the third and costs orders. Orders varied as set out.
Judges
Cowen, Meer
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act, Magistrates Court Jurisdiction, Overgrazing, Mandatory Interdict, Costs in Esta Matters
Land and Property Environmental Law Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act Magistrates Court Jurisdiction Overgrazing Mandatory Interdict +1 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsediso Phillip Tsotetsi

Appellant

Andries Tsotetsi

Appellant

Nthabiseng Tsotetsi

Appellant

Willem Jonathan Raubenheimer N.O.

Respondent

Helgrad Petrus Raubenheimer N.O.

Respondent

Francois Cooper N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Order Under ESTA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1) of ESTA to grant the orders sought.
  2. 2 Whether the Trustees were entitled to an order requiring removal of the Appellants' cattle for rehabilitation of the allocated area.
  3. 3 Whether the Trustees were entitled to an order limiting the number of cattle to be returned after rehabilitation.

Ratio Decidendi

The Land Claims Court held that the Magistrates Court had jurisdiction under section 19(1)(b) of ESTA to grant interdicts and declaratory orders in matters sufficiently connected to ESTA, including disputes over grazing rights of occupiers. The orders granted by the Magistrate were found to be mandatory and prohibitory interdicts in terms of ESTA, as the right to keep cattle was integrally connected to the Appellants' occupation and use of the land. The evidence established severe overgrazing of the allocated area, justifying the removal of cattle for rehabilitation. The Appellants failed to establish any contractual right to alternative grazing or to dispute the factual basis for the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of the first and second orders; appeal upheld in respect of the third and costs orders. Orders varied as set out.

Orders

  • The appeal against the first and second orders is dismissed. The date for removal of livestock is varied to 15 February 2021.
  • The appeal against the third order is upheld and replaced: The camp of 17.4 ha shall be rested for two growing seasons until September 2023, after which the Appellants may return only the number of livestock permitted by the Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act 43 of 1983 and its Regulations applicable at that...