Modderklip East Squatters v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd.

(187/03, 213/03) (2004) ZASCA 47; (2004) 3 All SA 169 (SCA) (2004)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Modderklip East Squatters v. Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd.

South Africa Supreme Court of Appeal
(187/03, 213/03) (2004) ZASCA 47; (2004) 3 All SA 169 (SCA) (2004)

Facts

Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd. (Modderklip) (plaintiff) owned a portion of the farm Modder East. The Modder East farm was adjacent to Daveyton Township. In the 1990s, residents of Daveyton began settling on a strip of land near the farm called the Chris Hani informal settlement. In May 2000, the Chris Hani settlement evicted approximately 400 people, and these 400 people moved onto a portion of the Modder East farm. In October 2000, Modderklip filed an application for eviction of the 2,000 people now squatting on the farm. The squatters opposed the application in court, but the court granted the application for eviction. After the court granted the application, the squatters failed to either vacate the farm or note an appeal to the court’s orders. Modderklip received a writ of execution to evict the squatters, but the sheriff requested a significant amount of money before executing the writ. Modderklip then started filing charges of trespass, but the local prison informed Modderklip that it was unable to hold all the squatters. After the South African Police Services (SAPS) (defendant) and the Ministry for Safety and Security refused to intervene to enforce evictions, Modderklip sought help from the central government to evict the squatters. The president, Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs, and Department of Housing refused to intervene, causing Modderklip to seek a declaratory order to enforce the eviction order under the South African Bill of Rights. The SAPS opposed the declaratory order, arguing that Modderklip needed to pay for the enforcement of the eviction order. The Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs (defendant) also opposed the declaratory order, arguing that the eviction would too greatly impact the public authorities because the squatters would require resettlement. However, the Department of Agriculture and Land Affairs also argued that the resettlement of the squatters was not a responsibility of the central government.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Harms, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership