Land en Landbouontwikkelingsbank van Suid-Afrika v Conradie

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Mpati DP, Zulman JA, Streicher JA, Lewis JA and Van Heerden JA
• Judgment Date: 24 March 2005
• Citation: 2005 (4) SA 506 (SCA)
• Docket Number: 452/2003
• Hearing Date: 08 March 2005
• Counsel: P van Eeden for the appellant. No appearance for the respondent.
• Court: Supreme Court of Appeal

Mpati DP: A

[1] On 19 March 2003 the magistrate of Ceres in the Western Cape granted the appellant an order of eviction against the respondent. The order, inter alia, required the respondent to vacate the property (the house on the farm Klein Pruise, Ceres) he had leased from the appellant by 31 May 2003. In terms of s 19(3) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 B (the Act) such order is subject to automatic review by the Land Claims Court, which may, inter alia, confirm or set it aside in whole or in part.

[2] On 12 May 2003 the Land Claims Court (Moloto J) set aside the eviction order and substituted it with one dismissing the application for eviction and made no order as to costs. (The C magistrate had ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the application.) The appellant is before us with leave of the Court a quo.

[3] In overturning the magistrate's judgment Moloto J held that he was not satisfied that the respondent's right of residence was terminated in accordance with the provisions of s 8 of D the Act. The appellant's reason for seeking the respondent's eviction was that it wished to sell the property, but that prospective buyers were not prepared to purchase it if the respondent continued to occupy it.

[4] The respondent did not file heads of argument and was not represented in this Court. However, on 2 March 2005 counsel E for the appellant filed additional heads of argument in which we were informed that the respondent has in fact vacated the property. Clearly, an order allowing the appeal would have no practical effect or result as between the parties and the appeal may be dismissed on this ground alone (s 21A(1) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959). F

[5] Counsel has, however, submitted that a judgment by this Court will have practical effect as a consideration of the appeal would entail a confirmation of or departure from the judgment of the Land Claims Court in Meyer NO v Tambani and Others 2002 (5) SA 811 (LCC). In that case the trustee of a trust sought to evict the G occupiers of a property owned by the trust on the ground that the trust had sold the property, but that the purchaser demanded to be given vacant possession. Moloto AJ dismissed the application, holding, in effect, that an occupier cannot be evicted on the sole ground that the owner wishes to give vacant possession to a purchaser. H

[6] Section 21A(1) of the Supreme Court Act reads:

'(1)

When at the hearing of any civil appeal to the [Supreme Court of Appeal] or any Provincial or Local Division of the [High Court] the issues are of such a nature that the judgment or order sought will have no practical effect or result, the appeal may be dismissed on this ground alone.' I

The section has been the subject of a number of decisions in this court. (See, for example, Premier, Provinsie Mpumalanga, en 'n Ander v Groblersdalse Stadsraad 1998 (2) SA 1136 (SCA); Western Cape Education Department and Another v George 1998 (3) SA 77 (SCA); Natal Rugby Union v Gould 1999 (1) SA 432 (SCA); Coin Security Group (Pty) Ltd v SA National Union for Security Officers and Others 2001 (2) SA 872 (SCA); J

Mpati DP

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Smit 2002 (4) SA 241 (SCA); The Merak S: Sea Melody Enterprises SA v Bulktrans (Europe A Corporation) 2002 (4) SA 273 (SCA); Rand Water Board v Rotek Industries (Pty) Ltd 2003 (4) SA 58 (SCA) and Radio Pretoria v Chairman, Independent Communications Authority of South Africa, and Another 2005 (1) SA 47 (SCA).) It is apparent from these decisions that this Court will not make determinations on issues that are otherwise moot merely because the parties believe that, although B the decision or order will have no practical result between them, a practical result could be achieved in other respects.

[7] As was said in Coin Security (at 875 in para [8]), however, the section confers a discretion on this Court. See also President, Ordinary Court Martial, and Others v Freedom of C Expression Institute and Others 1999 (4) SA 682 (CC) (1999 (11) BCLR 1219) at 687 (SA) in para [13]. Where, for example, questions of law, which are likely to arise frequently, are at issue a court of appeal may hear the merits of the appeal and pronounce upon it: The Merak S: Sea Melody Enterprises SA (supra) at 276 in para [4]. D

[8] In the present matter counsel argued, in addition to the submission mentioned in para [5] above, that in dealing with the merits of the appeal this Court may consider, and give guidance on, the requirements to be met by an owner or person in charge of the property in order to persuade a court, in eviction proceedings, having regard to E the provisions...