Voges NO and Another v Molusi and Others (LCC 85/2010) [2013] ZALCC 1 (18 January 2013)

Voges NO and Another v Molusi and Others (LCC 85/2010) [2013] ZALCC 1 (18 January 2013)

The Court found that the applicants, as owners and lessors, were entitled to terminate the periodic lease agreements with the respondents on reasonable notice, as the leases did not specify a fixed term or notice period. The procedural requirements under section 9(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met, including service of notices and compliance with statutory obligations. Although the respondents disputed receipt of notices and challenged the adequacy of service, the Court held that both parties were aware of the proceedings and that strict formalism should not defeat the application. The lack of suitable alternative accommodation was noted, but the Court determined that...

Citation
[2013] ZALCC 1
Parties
Applicant: Francis Daniel James Voges N.O.; Applicant: Frederika Maria Christina Voges N.O.; Respondent: Sophy Molusi; Respondent: Josephine Mabunda; Respondent: David Mamogalo; Respondent: Moosa Ngomane; Respondent: Aurelio Mkansi; Respondent: Ally Ernesto Dango; Respondent: Isaac Selowane; Respondent: K.L Twarisang; Respondent: Joseph Ramokane; Respondent: Nelson; Respondent: Frans Mokansi; Respondent: Joseph Mbela; Respondent: Head of the North West Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development & Land Reform; Respondent: Rustenburg Local Municipality
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2013
Case Number
LCC 85/2010
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; first to twelfth respondents and all persons occupying under or through them are ordered to vacate the property by 31 March 2013. Sheriff authorized to remove them after 3 April 2013 if they fail to comply. No order as to costs.
Judges
Y Sidlova
Legal Topics
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction of Occupiers, Lease Termination, Just and Equitable Requirement, Notice of Termination
Land and Property Civil Procedure Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction of Occupiers Lease Termination Just and Equitable Requirement Notice of Termination

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Daniel James Voges N.O.

Applicant

Frederika Maria Christina Voges N.O.

Applicant

Sophy Molusi

Respondent

Josephine Mabunda

Respondent

David Mamogalo

Respondent

Moosa Ngomane

Respondent

Aurelio Mkansi

Respondent

Ally Ernesto Dango

Respondent

Isaac Selowane

Respondent

K.L Twarisang

Respondent

Joseph Ramokane

Respondent

Nelson

Respondent

Frans Mokansi

Respondent

Joseph Mbela

Respondent

Head of the North West Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development & Land Reform

Respondent

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the termination of the lease agreements with the respondents was just and equitable under section 8(1) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements for eviction under section 9(2) of the Act were complied with.
  3. 3 Whether suitable alternative accommodation is available for the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicants, as owners and lessors, were entitled to terminate the periodic lease agreements with the respondents on reasonable notice, as the leases did not specify a fixed term or notice period. The procedural requirements under section 9(2) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act were met, including service of notices and compliance with statutory obligations. Although the respondents disputed receipt of notices and challenged the adequacy of service, the Court held that both parties were aware of the proceedings and that strict formalism should not defeat the application. The lack of suitable alternative accommodation was noted, but the Court determined that...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; first to twelfth respondents and all persons occupying under or through them are ordered to vacate the property by 31 March 2013. Sheriff authorized to remove them after 3 April 2013 if they fail to comply. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The first to twelfth Respondents and all persons occupying under or through them are ordered to vacate portion 81 (a portion of portion 65) of the farm Boschfontein 330-JQ, Rustenburg, by 31 March 2013.
  • The Sheriff for the district of Rustenburg is authorized to remove the first to twelfth Respondents, and all persons occupying under or through them, from the property on or after 3 April 2013 if they have not complied with the order.