Adams v Manuel and Others (9401/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 4 (3 February 2022)

Adams v Manuel and Others (9401/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 4 (3 February 2022)

The applicant failed to establish locus standi under PIE as she is neither the owner nor a person in charge of the land. She did not possess legal authority to grant permission to reside on the land, nor did she qualify as a bona fide possessor. Her control over the property was too tenuous, as she never resided there and did not manifest revocation of consent to the respondent. The essential elements of bona fide possession—bona fides, physical control, and appropriate mental attitude—were not satisfied. Consequently, the applicant cannot seek eviction under PIE. The court declined to address the non-joinder point and compliance with PIE s 4(2), as locus standi was dispositive.

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Rochelle Adams; Respondent: Sharief Manuel; Respondent: All other persons residing with the first respondent at 1[…] A[…] S[…] Road, Hout Bay, Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2022
Case Number
9401/2021
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion Before the High Court
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi under PIE.
Judges
J Cloete
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Unlawful Occupation, Bona Fide Possessor
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Unlawful Occupation Bona Fide Possessor

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rochelle Adams

Applicant

Sharief Manuel

Respondent

All other persons residing with the first respondent at 1[…] A[…] S[…] Road, Hout Bay, Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have locus standi under PIE to seek eviction of the respondent?
  2. 2 Is the applicant a 'person in charge of land' as defined in PIE?
  3. 3 Does the applicant qualify as a bona fide possessor for purposes of PIE?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish locus standi under PIE as she is neither the owner nor a person in charge of the land. She did not possess legal authority to grant permission to reside on the land, nor did she qualify as a bona fide possessor. Her control over the property was too tenuous, as she never resided there and did not manifest revocation of consent to the respondent. The essential elements of bona fide possession—bona fides, physical control, and appropriate mental attitude—were not satisfied. Consequently, the applicant cannot seek eviction under PIE. The court declined to address the non-joinder point and compliance with PIE s 4(2), as locus standi was dispositive.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi under PIE.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs.