Sithole v Native Resettlement Board

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Williamson J
• Judgment Date: 02 July 1959
• Citation: 1959 (4) SA 115 (W)
• Hearing Date: 01 July 1959
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Williamson, J.:

This is an extended return day of a rule nisi that was issued on the 9th June, 1959, calling upon the respondent to show cause (a) why it should not be interdicted from demolishing the applicant's property and (b) why it should not pay the costs of this application. This rule operated as an interim interdict.

B The proceedings arise out of the expropriation of property in terms of the Native Resettlement Act, 19 of 1954. The applicant was the registered owner of stand 786, Sophiatown, situated at 92 Meyer Street, Sophiatown, district of Johannesburg. The papers have annexed to them a C notice of expropriation issued in terms of the Act by the Native Resettlement Board constituted under the Act. This notice of expropriation was dated 24th March, 1959. On the 31st March a notice was also sent requiring the applicant to vacate the property expropriated, being stand 786, on or before the 31st March, 1959. The applicant did D not vacate the property in terms of the notice, and on the 9th June, 1959, apparently, a start was made with the demolishing of the property. The applicant came to this Court and obtained a rule which operated as a temporary interdict restraining any demolishing.

There are certain disputes of fact on the papers into which it is not necessary for me to enter in the light of the conclusion to which I have come. The first dispute is whether or not the applicant actually E received the notice of expropriation annexed to the papers, or whether he received the subsequent notice as well.

The notice of expropriation was one which was given in terms of sec. 17 of the Act, and in terms of sec. 17 (6) it is provided:

'Upon the service of any such notice the ownership in the land described in the notice shall pass to the board free of all encumbrances and the F board may, after expiry of a period of not less than thirty days from the date of such service, take possession of and use the land.'

The notice to vacate took cognizance of the provisions to which I have just made reference, and the applicant was only required to vacate at a time which allowed for the full expiry and more of the period provided for in this section mentioned above.

G The crisp point which arises is, whether the Native Resettlement Board is, by the provisions to which I have referred, entitled to enter upon and take possession of property and to demolish it if it so pleases, upon the expiry of the time provided for in sec. 17 (6), without any further action.

H The question as to whether or not the notice was received need not be dealt with; counsel for both parties have accepted the position that I can proceed to decide the matter in the first place upon the question as to whether or not the Board (respondent) had a right to demolish the property or to enter upon and take possession of the property without taking any further steps upon the expiry of the notice, assuming that the notice was received...