31 May 2005
302/2004
The Local Transitional Council of Delmas and the Member
of the Executive Council for Local Government : Mpumalanga
Province v Wilhelm Abraham Boshoff
The respondent is the owner of a farm in the district of Delmas. During
1993 an informal housing settlement, known as Botleng 3, was
established on his neighbouring farm in terms of the Less Formal
Township Act 13 of 1991. The respondent's case is that, since
the occupation of Botleng 3, life on his farm gradually became
intolerable. is cattle and sheep were stolen ; his crops were
destroyed by livestock straying from Botleng 3 and he and his
family were subjected to threats of violence and even of death.
As a consequence of all this the respondent and his family were
eventually driven from his farm. On the basis of these
allegations, the respondent instituted action against the
appellants in the Pretoria High Corut for the damage that he
suffered through the loss of hsi farm. His reason for choosing
the two appellants as defendants was that their predecessors,
the Botleng town committee and the Transvaal Provincial
Administration, respectively, were jointly responsible for the
establishment of Botleng 3. His cause of action against the
appellants was that their predecessors had negligently failed to
take any of the measures suggested by him to protect him from
the conduct of some of the inhabitants of Botleng 3 which
eventually drove him from his farm
31 May 2005
227/2004
Favish (also known as Shraga) Vidavsky v Body Corporate
of Sunhill Villas
The appellant and the respondent became involved in a dispute
involving the duties of the respondent in a sectional title
development in which the appellant resided. Arbitration
proceedings commenced. The respondent was absent from the
hearing and the arbitrator made an award in favour of the
appellant. When the appellant applied in terms of the
Arbitration Act to have the award made an order of court the
erspondent successfully opposed the application on the ground
that it had not received reasonable notice of the hearing as
required by s.15(2) of the Act. In an appeal the appellant
conceded that the respondent had only received 'notice' after
the hearing had been concluded. He argued that the award
nevertheless remained binding on the respondent because the
latter had not brought an application to have the award set
aside as envisaged in s.33(1) of the Act
31 May 2005
136/2003
Prinsloo v Ndebele-Ndzundza Community
Whether the claimaints to the 'Kafferskraal' farm in Mpumalanga
constituted a 'community' under the Restitution of Land Rights
Act 22 of 1994 and whether they were 'dispossessed' of any
rights in the land