CCT50/12

[2013] ZACC 5

2013 (3) SA 275 (CC)

2013 (5) BCLR 509 (CC)

Zondo J

6 November 2012

14 March 2013

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3678

Application for leave to appeal against a decision of the SCA which dismissed an appeal against a judgment and order of the Land Claims Court: Hattingh and Others v Juta (440/2011) [2012] ZASCA 84; 2012 (5) SA 237 (SCA); [2012] 3 All SA 399 (SCA) (30 May 2012). See earlier judgment of the Land Claims Court: Juta v Hattingh and Others (LC145/2010) [2011] ZALCC 23 (30 March 2011).

Application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal upholding an eviction order. Mrs Hattingh was an occupier according to the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA), in terms of which she had a right of residence on the respondent’s land. In terms of ESTA, an occupier has “a right to family life in accordance with the culture of that family”. The respondent brought an application in the Stellenbosch Magistrate’s Court to evict the applicants, who were members of Mrs Hattingh’s family, from his farm because he required part of the cottage to accommodate his farm manager. The family members resisted eviction. The Magistrate held that the applicants were entitled to live with the applicant on the farm in terms of ESTA. The Land Claims Court overturned this judgment and granted eviction. The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld the eviction. This Court dismissed the appeal. It held that section 6(2) of ESTA requires that the right to family life of an occupier be balanced with the rights of the landowner. This will depend on the facts of each case. In balancing the rights, the Court found that it would be just and equitable that the applicants be evicted. In the result, leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. Judgment: Zondo J (unanimous).