THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
|
|
|
| Supreme Court of Appeal -30/05 | Hearing date: 10 November 2005 |
| Judgment date: 30 November 2005 | |
In the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997, meaning of ‘land’ determined by reference to its cadastral description ─ ‘Established practice’ ─ - Once an ‘established practice’ for burials exists, a landowner or person in charge may not unilaterally terminate the practice. |
|
Media Summary of Judgment |
|
From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Please note that the media summary is intended for the benefit of the media and does not form part of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal M DLAMINI AND ANOTHER v P J JOOSTEN AND OTHERS The Supreme Court of Appeal today upheld an appeal against a decision by the Land Claims Court dismissing an application by the Dlamini’s to bury a deceased member of their family, Gertrude Ntombi Zondi, on a farm that is owned by the Joosten family in the New-Hanover area of KwaZulu-Natal. The Dlamini family has resided and worked on the farm for generations. Over the years they had buried their deceased on the farm in accordance with their religion and cultural belief with the consent of the Joostens. Other families who resided and worked on the farm had also been given permission for burials to take place here. However, in 2002 the Joosten family withdrew the permission. And last year, when the Dlamini’s sought permission from the Joosten’s to bury the deceased, this was refused. The Dlamini’s had based their case on section 6(2)(dA) of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 62 of 1997, which permits a person who occupies land that belongs to another person to bury deceased members of his or her family on that land if permission for burials had routinely been given in the past. They argued successfully that once a practice of allowing burials had been established on the farm, as it had been in the case of the deceased, it could not be withdrawn unilaterally.
|
|