Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others

JudgeHeyns J
Judgment Date23 July 1986
Citation1987 (1) SA 878 (T)
Hearing Date18 March 1986
CourtTransvaal Provincial Division

Heyns J:

The above three matters came before me as opposed applications on notice of motion. The Eastern Transvaal Development Board, a statutory body created by s 3 of the Black E Communities Development Act 4 of 1984, previously known as an administration board, is the applicant in each of the three matters and the respondents are three Black men whom it is alleged each occupy a house on land of which applicant is the owner.

The issues involved in each of the cases are identical. For that reason counsel for the parties, who in each of these cases F are the same, requested me to deal with case No 22188/85 only, which is the case concerning respondent Timothy Radebe, since the result flowing from my decision in this matter will be applicable to the other two cases as well.

To understand the issues involved it is necessary to repeat the pleadings in case No 22188/85 fully:

'Neem kennis dat die Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal G (hierna die applikant genoem) van voornemens is om by hierdie agbare Hofaansoek te doen om 'n bevel met die volgende bepalings:

(1)

'n bevel dat die respondent en alle persone wat voorgee dat hulle 'n besitsreg van hom aflei uitgesit word van die perseel bekend as Perseel 927, emgwenya, H Waterval-Boven en die huis daarop;

(2)

'n bevel waarvolgens die respondent gelas word om die koste van hierdie aansoek te betaal;

(3)

dat sodanige alternatiewe regshulp aan die applikant verleen word as wat die agbare Hof nodig of dienstig mag vind.

Geliewe verder kennis te neem dat die meegaande beddigde verklaring van George Louis James gebruik sal word ter I ondersteuning van hierdie aansoek.'

The affidavit of Mr James reads as follows:

'1.

Ek is 'n meerderjarige man, die hoofdirekteur van die applikant te Anersonstraat 66, Nelspruit, Transvaal. Ek is bevoeg en instaat om hierdie verklaring te maak namens die applikant soos blvk uit 'n afskrif van 'n besluit hierby J aangeheg as aanhangsel "A".

Heyns J

2.

A Die applikant is die Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal 'n statutûre liggaam ingester kragtens art 3 van die Wet op die Ontwikkeling van Swart Gemeenskappe 4 van 1984 en met regspersoonlikheid beklee kragtens art 3(2) van dieselfde Wet. Die applikant se hoofkantoor is geleë te Andersonstraat 66, Nelspruit, Transvaal.

3.

Die respondent is Timothy Radebe, 'n meerderjarige treinopsteller woonagtig te Perseel 927, emgwenya, Waterval-Boven, en werksaam te SA Vervoerdienste, Waterval-Boven, Transvaal.

4.

B Die applikant is die eienaar van perseel bekend as die Perseel 927, eMgwenva, Waterval-Boven en die huis op die gemelde perseel kragtens transportakte T14256/1952.

5.

Die respondent en alle persone wat voorgee dat hulle 'n besitsreg van hom aflei is tans in besit en/of okkupasie van die gemelde perseel en huis.

Derhalwe smeek die applikant vir 'n bevel soos volg:

(1)

C 'n bevel dat die respondent en alle persone wat voorgee dat hulle 'n besitsreg vali hom aflei uitgesit word van die perseel bekend as Perseel 927, eMgwenya, Waterval-Boven en die huis daarop;

(2)

'n bevel waarvolgens die respondent gelas word om die koste van hierdie aansoek te betaal;

(3)

dat sodanige alternatiewe regshulp aan die applikant verleen word as wat die agbare Hof nodig of dienstig mag vind.

D Geteken G L James.'

To this affidavit respondent replied as follows:

'1.

I am the respondent in the above matter, I have read the applicant's notice of motion and founding affidavit and I answer thereto as follows:

2.

I admit paras 1,2 and 3 of the applicant's founding affidavit.

3.

Ad para 4 of applicant's founding affidavit

E In as much as applicant's statement that it is the owner of the said property is not proof in law of such ownership, the deponent's allegation in this regard is denied.

4.

Ad para 5 of applicant's founding affidavit

Whilst persisting in my denial of applicant's ownership of the said property, I admit that I am presently in possession and occupation thereof.

5.

If this honourable Court should find that applicant is the F owner of the said property, then I say that the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed by it on the basis of such ownership and the reasons for this are stated hereunder.

6. (a)

My rights and obligations in regard to the possession and occupation of the said property are governed solely by the regulations pertaining to the control and supervision of an urban black residential area.

(b)

The said property is within an urban black residential area to which such regulations pertain.

(c)

G Such regulations are presently of force and effect in terms of Government Notice R1036 of 14 June 1968 as published in Government Gazette No 2096 (Regulation Gazette No 976) of that date, together with all subsequent relevant amendments.

(d)

Such common law rights as the applicant may claim to the said property have therefore been displaced by the said regulations and do not avail the applicant for the relief that he seeks.

(e)

H The applicant has failed to use the procedure stipulated in the said regulations for my eviction.

7.

I therefore pray that the applicant's claim be dismissed with costs.'

Counsel for applicant contends that, in view of the contents of para 6 of respondent's answering affidavit, respondent raises a legal and not any factual dispute and therefore there is no I need for it to replicate to an issue founded on law.

When opening argument counsel for applicant handed to the Court a certified copy of deed of transfer No T14256/52 referred to in para 4 of applicant's founding affidavit. He contended that this is a public document and that in terms of s 18(1) of the J Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 a certified copy of a public document is admissible as

Heyns J

evidence on its mere production. In this regard he referred to A Northern Mounted Rifles v O'Callaghan 1909 TS 174 at 177, where the requirements of a public document are summed up by Innes CJ as follows:

'It must have been made by a public officer in execution of a public duty. It must have been for public use and the public must have had a right of access to it;'

and he also referred to Schmidt Bewysreg 2nd ed at 337 and 339 B where the learned author discusses what documents are considered public documents and how such a document is proved in evidence. See also Gemeenskapsontwikkelingsraad v Williams and Others (1) 1977 (2) SA 692 (W) at 696H.

Section 18(1) of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act 25 of 1965 C provides as follows:

'(1) Whenever any book or other document is of such a public nature as to be admissible in evidence on its mere production from proper custody, any copy thereof or extract therefrom proved to be an examined copy or extract or purporting to be signed and certified as a true copy or extract by the officer to whose custody, the original is entrusted, shall be admissible in evidence....'

D Subsection (2) provides:

'(2) Such officer shall furnish such certified copy or extract to any person applying therefor upon payment of an amount in accordance with the tariff of fees prescribed by or under any law....'

The document handed up to the Court is, in appearance, a photo of the original deed of transfer T14256/52 and bears, amongst E other endorsements, a stamp bearing the words:

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Fink and Another v Bedfordview Town Council and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1990 (1) SA 280 (A); Krugersdorp Town Council v Fortuin 1965 (2) SA 335 (T); Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T); Akbar v Patel 1974 (4) SA 104 (T); Minister of Law and Order and H Another v Parker 1989 (2) SA 633 (A); Hoffmann and Zeffertt South African ......
  • Skhosana and Others v Roos t/a Roos Se Oord and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Ngqulunga and Another v Minister of Law and Order 1983 (2) SA 696 (N): considered Ontwikkelingsraad Gos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T): considered Oosthuizen and Another v Standard Credit Corporation Ltd 1993 (3) SA 891 (A): dictum at 90 lA-B applied Paper, Printing, Wood......
  • Radebe and Others v Eastern Transvaal Development Board
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...orders. Appeal dismissed. The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Ontwikkelingsraad, Oos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T) Case Information Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (Heyns J). The facts appear from the judgment of Kumleben AJA.......
  • Schapenrome Investments (Edms) Bpk en Andere v Sandtonse Stadsraad en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Naik 1952 (3) SA 331 (A); S v Karge and Another 1971 (3) SA 470 (T) op 473E-H; Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal v Radebe en Andere 1987 (1) SA 878 (T) op 880I-883D; Hoffmann en Zeffertt South African Law of E Evidence 3de uitg op 135-6; Byers v Chinn and Another 1928 AD 322 op 332; Enginee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Fink and Another v Bedfordview Town Council and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...1990 (1) SA 280 (A); Krugersdorp Town Council v Fortuin 1965 (2) SA 335 (T); Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T); Akbar v Patel 1974 (4) SA 104 (T); Minister of Law and Order and H Another v Parker 1989 (2) SA 633 (A); Hoffmann and Zeffertt South African ......
  • Skhosana and Others v Roos t/a Roos Se Oord and Others
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...Ngqulunga and Another v Minister of Law and Order 1983 (2) SA 696 (N): considered Ontwikkelingsraad Gos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T): considered Oosthuizen and Another v Standard Credit Corporation Ltd 1993 (3) SA 891 (A): dictum at 90 lA-B applied Paper, Printing, Wood......
  • Radebe and Others v Eastern Transvaal Development Board
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...orders. Appeal dismissed. The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in Ontwikkelingsraad, Oos-Transvaal v Radebe and Others 1987 (1) SA 878 (T) Case Information Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (Heyns J). The facts appear from the judgment of Kumleben AJA.......
  • Schapenrome Investments (Edms) Bpk en Andere v Sandtonse Stadsraad en 'n Ander
    • South Africa
    • Invalid date
    ...v Naik 1952 (3) SA 331 (A); S v Karge and Another 1971 (3) SA 470 (T) op 473E-H; Ontwikkelingsraad Oos-Transvaal v Radebe en Andere 1987 (1) SA 878 (T) op 880I-883D; Hoffmann en Zeffertt South African Law of E Evidence 3de uitg op 135-6; Byers v Chinn and Another 1928 AD 322 op 332; Enginee......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT