Automated Summary
Key Facts
The applicants, a group of families residing on Karise Farm, allege they were evicted by the respondent (lessee) through the termination of water and electricity services. The respondent denies responsibility, claiming the disconnection occurred in 1996 (before the Extension of Security of Tenure Act's 1997 implementation) and disputes the applicants' status as occupiers. The court found unresolved factual disputes regarding occupancy, service disconnection dates, and water sufficiency, ordering oral evidence to determine these issues.
Issues
- The applicants alleged the respondent evicted them by terminating water access in 1996, which they argued continued post-4 February 1997. The respondent countered that the disconnection occurred before the Act's commencement and that he had no legal obligation to restore services. The court agreed the Act's section 6 protects water access linked to residency rights but found unresolved factual disputes about when, where, and by whom the disconnection occurred, requiring oral evidence to clarify.
- The respondent asserted there was insufficient water to restore services to all applicants. The court noted conflicting allegations: the applicants claimed intentional deprivation, while the respondent argued physical limitations. The judgment ordered clarification on the farm's water availability and its capacity to meet the applicants' needs, emphasizing the necessity of resolving this factual dispute through oral testimony and potential in loco inspection.
- The court could not determine on the papers whether the applicants (families living on Karise Farm) are occupiers as defined under the Act. The respondent denied their occupancy claims, citing lack of records and pre-Act notices to vacate. The applicants' affidavits were deemed insufficiently detailed, necessitating oral evidence to resolve disputes about their residency, employment with Mr Thaning, and the validity of their claims post-4 February 1997.
Holdings
- The court dismissed the applicants' claim regarding the electricity supply as unsubstantiated, noting that the letter discontinuing the supply was issued by Dr Thaning, not the respondent.
- The court held that the continued deprivation of water access after the Act's commencement in 1997 constitutes an eviction, even if the initial disconnection occurred in 1996. Section 6 of the Act supports this right to water access.
- The court ruled that the respondent's counter application for eviction cannot be considered until the applicants' status is resolved. This is because the counter application is contingent on the initial determination of occupancy.
- The court ordered oral evidence to resolve key factual questions, including the disconnection of water supply, access to water, sufficiency of water, and the status of applicants not admitted as occupiers.
- The court determined that there are serious and material factual disputes regarding the applicants' status as occupiers, making it impossible to decide their status on the papers. The respondent's denials raise questions about the presence and origins of the applicants, necessitating oral evidence for resolution.
Remedies
- The court directed that the costs of the application be treated as costs in the cause, implying that they will be borne by the parties as part of the ongoing legal proceedings.
- Parties are permitted to call relevant witnesses whose evidence pertains to the unresolved questions. Unaffirmed witnesses must provide names and a brief summary of their evidence at least five days prior to the hearing.
- The court ordered that oral evidence be heard to resolve factual disputes regarding the applicants' occupancy status, the disconnection of water supply, and the availability of sufficient water on the farm.
Legal Principles
The court determined there were serious factual disputes regarding the applicants' status as occupiers and the respondent's role in their eviction, necessitating oral evidence to resolve. The Plascon-Evans test was considered but not applied conclusively, as the judge found two competing versions requiring cross-examination.
Precedent Name
- Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd
- Dhladhla and Others v Erasmus
- De Jager & Sons v Kumalo
- Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd
Cited Statute
Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997
Judge Name
Bam P
Passage Text
- [23] After a careful comparison of the versions, I still need clarity and enlightenment on the following: Was the applicants' water supply disconnected? If so, when, where and by whom? Were applicants denied access to water? If so, when, where and by whom?...
- [17] I agree that the view expressed by Mr Botha is sound both in logic and in terms of the Act. Again I am of the view that section 6 of the Act puts the issue beyond doubt and entrenches the right of access to water...
- [6] I have carefully scrutinized all these averments and denials in respect of each applicant and have reached the conclusion that there are such serious and material factual disputes in respect of all of them that I am unable to decide their status on the papers...