Jeena v Minister of Lands

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Centlivres CJ, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA and Fagan JA
• Judgment Date: 21 March 1955
• Citation: 1955 (2) SA 380 (A)
• Hearing Date: 15 March 1955
• Court: Appellate Division

Jeena v Minister of Lands
1955 (2) SA 380 (A)

1955 (2) SA p380

Citation	1955 (2) SA 380 (A)
Court	Appellate Division
Judge	Centlivres CJ, Greenberg JA, Schreiner JA, Van Den Heever JA and Fagan JA
Heard	March 15, 1955
Judgment	March 21, 1955

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde C

Land — Land Settlement Act 12 of 1912 — Object of Act — Right of Government to ejectment of occupants of land purchased by it — Ejectment — Who may sue for — Right of registered owner.

Headnote : Kopnota

The object of the Land Settlement Act, 12 of 1912, is to settle persons on the land and in carrying out that object the Government is entitled D to take possession of land bought by it for the purpose of the Act in order to place a settler on that land. As the registered owner of such land it is entitled to an ejectment order against an occupant who is unable to set up against the Government any valid claim to the possession or detentio of such land.

The decision of the Transvaal Provincial Division in Jeena v Minister of Lands confirmed. E

Case Information

Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (RAMSBOTTOM, J. and HILL, A.J.), leave having been granted by the Court a quo. The facts appear from the judgment of CENTLIVRES, C.J.

G. Findlay, Q.C. (with him G. G. Hoexter), for the appellant: Vis-a-vis F appellant, Scheepers, the allottee of the land in question by the Government, entered into possession of the tenement as landlord, and became exclusively possessed of it. The landlord has juristic possession while the lessee has mere detention or natural possession. See Pothier, Letting & Hiring (sec. 91; Mulligan's tr., p. 39); Pollock-Wright, Possession (pp. 12, 20); Savigny, On Possession (Perry's tr., p. 62). G The landlord clearly had juristic possession as against appellant, the lessee, and in virtue thereof took the rent. When Scheepers took over from the landlord and was confirmed in his possession by the Government, the juristic possession no longer lay with the landlord, as appears from the fact that she was not allowed to keep the rentals; it could not have have passed to the Government, for the latter performed no act of H taking; and it would not have vested in appellant who remained a mere tenant with detentio. It passed to Scheepers and, since he was entitled to the enjoyment of the whole tenement, the rents taken from the landlord, and later direct from appellant, were held by the Government for the account of Scheepers. The Government has no right to collect rents for its own account on

1955 (2) SA p381

land allotted. Scheepers' possession as successor to the landlord is a fact and the Government in taking transfer of the dry legal estate for Scheepers under sec. 11 of Act 12 of 1912, has no duty, and no right, to put Scheepers into possession. The contract of sale is automatic and comes into operation by a deeming on transfer, and not retrospectively A as at transfer under sec. 11 (9). Its subsequent reduction to writing and the registration thereof in the Deeds Office is merely to give effect thereto as a real right. Scheepers' exclusive possessory right is clear in the matter of the improvements. It was for him to say whether appellant should remove or be compensated therefor. The Government, save as the agent of Scheepers, had no right to keep or clear the buildings B erected by appellant. It could not alter his tenement as it pleased; see clause 2 (a) (1) of the contract and sec. 28. The general scheme of Act 12 of 1912, under sec. 11, is that the Government holds nude dominium in securitatem merely and does not take possession or control sub-tenants lawfully on the land while conditions are being C complied with. The Government could not refuse a contract to Scheepers...