Wormald and Others v Kambule (524/2004) [2005] ZASCA 84; [2005] 4 All SA 629 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 562 (SCA) (22 September 2005)

Wormald and Others v Kambule (524/2004) [2005] ZASCA 84; [2005] 4 All SA 629 (SCA); 2006 (3) SA 562 (SCA) (22 September 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's occupation of the property was unlawful, as she failed to establish a valid customary marriage due to non-registration under the Transkei Marriage Act. Customary law does not confer real rights of occupation in property owned by a separate legal entity, especially where the property is subject to mortgage bonds and not specifically donated or transferred to the respondent. The court found that PIE does not expropriate the landowner and that the respondent's circumstances did not warrant protection as a vulnerable occupier. The estate's offer of alternative accommodation was reasonable, and the respondent's maintenance claim could be...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 84
Parties
Appellant: Hugh Arnold Wormald N.O.; Appellant: Burton Queenstown CC; Appellant: Norah Khupela Baduza; Respondent: Lungiswa Snowy Kambule
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 September 2005
Case Number
524/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division
Outcome
Appeal against refusal of eviction order succeeds; appeal against refusal of declaratory order dismissed; costs awarded against the estate.
Judges
MML Maya, Mpati, Zulman, Nugent, Combrinck
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Customary Marriage Registration, Unlawful Occupation, Maintenance Claims, Personal Servitude, Declaratory Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Family and Children Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Customary Marriage Registration Unlawful Occupation Maintenance Claims Personal Servitude +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hugh Arnold Wormald N.O.

Appellant

Burton Queenstown CC

Appellant

Norah Khupela Baduza

Appellant

Lungiswa Snowy Kambule

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's occupation of the property is lawful under PIE and customary law.
  2. 2 Whether a customary marriage not registered under the Transkei Marriage Act is valid and confers rights of occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is entitled to maintenance or alternative accommodation from the estate.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent's occupation of the property was unlawful, as she failed to establish a valid customary marriage due to non-registration under the Transkei Marriage Act. Customary law does not confer real rights of occupation in property owned by a separate legal entity, especially where the property is subject to mortgage bonds and not specifically donated or transferred to the respondent. The court found that PIE does not expropriate the landowner and that the respondent's circumstances did not warrant protection as a vulnerable occupier. The estate's offer of alternative accommodation was reasonable, and the respondent's maintenance claim could be...

Court Disposition

Appeal against refusal of eviction order succeeds; appeal against refusal of declaratory order dismissed; costs awarded against the estate.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to vacate Erf 2989, 44 Longview Crescent, Queenstown within 12 months of the date of this order.
  • Failing vacation, the Sheriff for the district of Albany is authorized to remove the respondent and all persons under her control, together with their possessions, from the property on 30 September 2006.