Page | 1 IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COURT
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case no: CCT 96/15
In the matter between:
SOPHY MOLUSI First applicant
DAVID MAMAGOLA Second applicant
ISAAC SELOLWANE Third applicant
K L TWARISANG Fourth applicant
JOSEPH RAMOKANE Fifth applicant
FRANS MOKANSI Sixth applicant
and
FRANCOIS DANIËL JAMES VOGES N.O. First respondent FREDERIKA MARIA CHRISTINA VOGES N.O. Second respondent THE HEAD OF THE NORTH WEST PROVINCIAL
OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM Third respondent
THE RUSTENBURG LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Fourth respondent
______________________________________________________
PRACTICE NOTE FILED O.B.O. THE APPLICANTS
______________________________________________________
1. Details of parties and case
number: As set out in the heading above.
2. Nature of proceedings: Application for leave to appeal against an order by the SCA dismissing an appeal by occupiers
Page | 2 against an eviction order granted against them by the LCC under ESTA.
3. The issues that will be
argued: Whether the Courts below correctly exercised their discretion under sections 8 and 9 of ESTA.
Whether a lessor can terminate a lease agreement simply by notice where ESTA is applicable and/or where eviction proceedings will follow.
Whether it is permissible that a landowner may plead one basis for termination of residence but obtain an eviction order on another basis.
4. Relevant portions of record: The whole record, which is not voluminous, is important.
5. Duration of argument: 2 to 3 hours.
6. Summary of argument: The respondents purportedly terminated lease agreements due to non-payment of rent.
This basis for termination was effectively
Page | 3 refuted by the applicants.
In argument before the LCC the respondents relied on mere notice to terminate the leases, in that they refused to accept rent and said that they would demolish the applicants’ dwellings.
In argument before the SCA the applicants still relied on mere notice to terminate the leases, but in this instance in that they gave written notice of termination.
There was no proper termination of residence under the common law, let alone under section 8 of ESTA.
Termination of right of residence was not just and equitable under section 8 of ESTA.
Eviction was not just and equitable under ESTA.
There was trial by ambush.
7. Main authorities that will be
referred to in argument: See the cases marked with an asterisk at the end of the heads of argument filed herewith.
Page | 4 C R JANSEN SC
J J BOTHA
Counsel for applicants
Chambers, Pretoria 25 September 2015
