S v Ntuli

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Ludorf J and Eloff AJ
• Judgment Date: 11 September 1967
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 14 August 1967
• Citation: 1967 (4) SA 349 (T)

Eloff, A.J.:

The appellant was the holder of a site permit granted to him by the City Council of Benoni in respect of stand 110 (a), Benoni Location, and he was at all relevant times in occupation thereof. During about June, 1966, the City Council resolved to abolish the Benoni A Location, which is one established by it in terms of sec. 2 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 25 of 1945, and to that end it approached the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development for his consent thereto. Such consent was thereafter given by letter dated 23rd November, 1966, which reads as follows:

B 'Die Bantoesakekommissaris, Benoni.

Benoni: Afskaffing van Benoni Bantoewoongebied:

U No. N9/15/3(2) van 10 Junie 1966 verwys:

Sy Edele die Minister van Bantoe-administrasie en - ontwikkeling het die afskaffing van die bogenoemde stedelike Bantoewoongebied, kragtens art. 3 (2) van Wet 25 van 1945, goedgekeur, 'n kennisgewing in die C verband sal eersdaags in die Staatskoerant verskyn.

(Get.) J. F. Stevens, Sekretaris van Bantoe-

administrasie en - ontwikkeling.'

The notice in the Government Gazette which is referred to in the letter was published on 15th December 1966; it merely stated that the Minister D notifies all whom it may concern that the location was abolished, without in any way setting out whether that had been done subject to conditions, and, if so, what they were.

On 12th December, 1966, the Benoni City Council wrote appellant a letter notifying him that it had resolved to abolish the location, and calling upon him to take up residence in Daveyton Bantu Township/Daveyton Bantu E Residential Area (sic). It went on to say that appellant's residence in the Benoni Location had in consequence become unlawful. Appellant failed, however, to comply with the demand, and a prosecution was thereupon launched against him in the Benoni Magistrate's Court for allegedly contravening sec. 1 of the Trespass Act, 6 of 1959. The F factual averment against him was that he remained on the stand in question without the consent of the owner, the City Council of Benoni. The result of the prosecution was that he was found guilty and given a suspended sentence, and it is against that conviction that he now comes on appeal.

G The basis of the State's allegation that appellant was trespassing was, as far as I can make out from the record of the proceedings and the magistrate's reasons, that the consequences of the abolishment of the Benoni Location was that, without more, the appellant's occupation had become unlawful. It is not clear to me that, even if it be assumed that the abolishment of the location was legally effective and complete, that H necessarily leads to the conclusion that the occupation of a site by a permit holder such as the appellant is rendered unlawful. The judgment of VAN DEN...