Supreme Court: Borrowers Retain Redemption Rights if Balance is Paid After Auction Deadline  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Confirmation of Seizure under Section 37A Impacts Adjudication Proceedings  ||  SC: Blacklisting After Contract Termination is Not Automatic and Needs Independent Review  ||  Grand Venice Fraud Case: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Satinder Singh Bhasin  ||  SC: Senior Employee Cannot Claim Same Lesser Penalty As Subordinate; Bank Manager's Dismissal Upheld  ||  Madras HC: Governor Must Follow Cabinet's Advice on Remission Decisions, Regardless of Personal View  ||  Kerala High Court: Entrepreneurs Must Be Protected From Baseless Protests to Boost Industrial Growth  ||  J&K&L High Court: Second FIR Valid if it Reveals a Broader Conspiracy; 'Test of Sameness' is Key  ||  Supreme Court: Expecting a Minor to Respond to a Public Court Notice is ‘Perverse’  ||  SC: Order 23 Rule 1 CPC Applies to S. 11 Arbitration Act, Barring Fresh Arbiration After Abandonment    

Nimble Investments (Pty) Ltd vs. Johanna Malan and Others - (30 Sep 2021)

Fundamental breach of relationship justifies eviction

Tenancy

The Appellant’s appeal is against an order of the Land Claims Court, Randburg, which set aside an order by the Magistrate’s Court that, the Respondents be evicted from (the farm, in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997 (ESTA). The ground for their eviction was essentially that, the first Respondent had committed a fundamental breach of the relationship between her and the manager or owner of the farm, that was practically impossible to restore as envisaged in Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA.

The conduct constituted a fundamental breach of the relationship between the occupier and the landowner, justifying the eviction of the Respondents. The eviction was just and equitable as it was untenable to force a landowner to continue with a relationship which, according to the evidence was practically impossible to restore. For this reason and on a proper construction of Section 10(1)(c) of ESTA, it was unnecessary to grant the Respondents an opportunity to make representations as envisaged in Section 8(1)(e) of Act.

A number of the Respondents were employed elsewhere but paid no rent and made no contribution to utilities. The Supreme Court concluded that, the landowner could not be expected to provide free housing and utilities to the Respondents as it had done for a number of years. ESTA was not intended to promote the security of opportunistic occupiers at the expense and exploitation of the rights of landowners. Moreover, the Appellant was, and remained willing to assist the Respondents financially in finding alternative accommodation. This assistance was unreasonably refused. In a minority judgment, it was held that the order of eviction was not just and equitable. The Respondents had not been given an opportunity to make representations as envisaged in Section 8(1)(e) of ESTA, why their rights of residence should not be terminated.

Tags : EVICTION   GRANT   JUSTIFICATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved