Wilgerweg Trust v Ockhuis (LCC 23R/2016) [2016] ZALCC 10 (19 April 2016)

Wilgerweg Trust v Ockhuis (LCC 23R/2016) [2016] ZALCC 10 (19 April 2016)

The court found that, although the applicant was not the registered owner of the property at the time the founding affidavit was deposed to and oral evidence was given, it had locus standi as the person in charge of the property under ESTA. The requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were satisfied. However, the court expressed grave concern over the applicant's misrepresentation under oath regarding ownership, noting this conduct showed disrespect for the court and the administration of justice and warranted referral to the Law Society and Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation.

Citation
[2016] ZALCC 10
Parties
Applicant: Wilgerweg Trust; Respondent: Niklaas Ockhuis
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 April 2016
Case Number
LCC 23R/2016
Procedural Posture
Automatic Review / Confirmation of Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order confirmed with substituted dates; judgment referred to Law Society and Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation of possible contempt and perjury.
Judges
Yacoob AJ
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Esta, Locus Standi, Misrepresentation Under Oath, Person in Charge, Contempt of Court
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Under Esta Locus Standi Misrepresentation Under Oath Person in Charge Contempt of Court

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

Wilgerweg Trust

Applicant

Niklaas Ockhuis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Automatic Review / Confirmation of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the eviction application under ESTA.
  2. 2 Whether the evidence presented regarding ownership of the property constituted a misrepresentation under oath.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicant was not the registered owner of the property at the time the founding affidavit was deposed to and oral evidence was given, it had locus standi as the person in charge of the property under ESTA. The requirements for eviction under section 9 of ESTA were satisfied. However, the court expressed grave concern over the applicant's misrepresentation under oath regarding ownership, noting this conduct showed disrespect for the court and the administration of justice and warranted referral to the Law Society and Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation.

Court Disposition

Eviction order confirmed with substituted dates; judgment referred to Law Society and Director of Public Prosecutions for investigation of possible contempt and perjury.

Orders

  • The order of the Magistrate, Clanwilliam on 1 March 2016 in case number 289/2015 is confirmed, except for the substitution of dates.
  • If the respondent has not vacated the premises by 16 May 2016, he and all those who occupy through him must vacate by that date.