allegations have been denied by the same councillors who he claims granted him permission. [34] As with the case with the eighth respondent, in to avoid repetition, I think it would suffice to say the alleged permission granted to the ninth respondent would be invalid for the same reason as in the case of the eighth respondent. The applicant is accordingly entitled to an eviction order against the ninth respondent. [35] Regarding the tenth respondent, the applicant alleges that the tenth respondent arrived at the village around 2007 due to drought, and that he needed grazing for his animals. He was granted a grazing right for a period of one year; and after the expiry of that period he was requested to leave, but he did not leave. He then moved to a nearby village where he settled without permission. Despite numerous requests to leave, he refused to leave. The tenth respondent alleges that he was granted permission by members of the community of Omao village and by the traditional authority of Otjikaoko, and that the piece of land where he settled was indicated to him by a certain Tjazapi Kututa, who is a senior Traditional Councillor of Otjikaoko Traditional Authority. He admits that his initial settlement at that village was temporary due to the drought, but that thereafter he obtained permission to settle during 2009. Finally, the respondent stressed that he settled at that said village with permission from both the Otjikaoko Traditional Authority as well as the Vita Royal House, the applicant. Similar to the third and sixth respondents, at the end of his affidavit this respondent likewise admits that he did not know that he had to apply to the Traditional Authority for a customary land right. He prays for the court to condone his ignorance of the law and to recognise that his settlement in the area was in terms of customary law. Alternatively that the court grants him leave to apply for a customary land right in accordance with section 22 of the Communal Land Reform Act No 5 of 2002 within three months of the order.
allegations have been denied by the same councillors who he claims granted him permission. [34] As with the case with the eighth respondent, in to avoid repetition, I think it would suffice to say the alleged permission granted to the ninth respondent would be invalid for the same reason as in the case of the eighth respondent. The applicant is accordingly entitled to an eviction order against the ninth respondent. [35] Regarding the tenth respondent, the applicant alleges that the tenth respondent arrived at the village around 2007 due to drought, and that he needed grazing for his animals. He was granted a grazing right for a period of one year; and after the expiry of that period he was requested to leave, but he did not leave. He then moved to a nearby village where he settled without permission. Despite numerous requests to leave, he refused to leave. The tenth respondent alleges that he was granted permission by members of the community of Omao village and by the traditional authority of Otjikaoko, and that the piece of land where he settled was indicated to him by a certain Tjazapi Kututa, who is a senior Traditional Councillor of Otjikaoko Traditional Authority. He admits that his initial settlement at that village was temporary due to the drought, but that thereafter he obtained permission to settle during 2009. Finally, the respondent stressed that he settled at that said village with permission from both the Otjikaoko Traditional Authority as well as the Vita Royal House, the applicant. Similar to the third and sixth respondents, at the end of his affidavit this respondent likewise admits that he did not know that he had to apply to the Traditional Authority for a customary land right. He prays for the court to condone his ignorance of the law and to recognise that his settlement in the area was in terms of customary law. Alternatively that the court grants him leave to apply for a customary land right in accordance with section 22 of the Communal Land Reform Act No 5 of 2002 within three months of the order.
Vita%20Royal%20House%20v%20The%20Minister%20of%20Land%20Reform%20(A%20109-2015)%20[2016]%20NAHCMD%20339%20(7%20November%202016).docx