Anchorprops 31 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Levin (3104/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 183 (28 May 2020)

Anchorprops 31 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Levin (3104/2020) [2020] ZAGPJHC 183 (28 May 2020)

The court found that Mr Jensen's reliance on an alleged oral lease agreement was not supported by objective evidence and was contradicted by Mr Levin's affidavit and contemporaneous WhatsApp messages. The alleged factual dispute was not real, genuine, or bona fide, and could be robustly rejected on the papers. Mr Jensen was in unlawful occupation, and no valid defence was established. The court considered the requirements of justice and equity under the PIE Act, including Mr Jensen's age, health, and financial circumstances, but found his claims of vulnerability unsubstantiated. The interests of Mr Levin as the property owner and his reliance on rental income were also weighed. The appeal...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 183
Parties
Appellant: Anchorprops 31 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Flemming Jensen; Respondent: Grant Benjamin Levin
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2020
Case Number
3104/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal against eviction order dismissed; costs order amended; eviction order suspended pending amendment of lockdown regulations.
Judges
PF Louw, S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Proceedings, Factual Dispute on Affidavit, Just and Equitable Remedy, Costs Award, Lockdown Regulations
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Proceedings Factual Dispute on Affidavit Just and Equitable Remedy Costs Award Lockdown Regulations

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anchorprops 31 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Flemming Jensen

Appellant

Grant Benjamin Levin

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate's court erred in granting an eviction order against the second appellant.
  2. 2 Whether the alleged oral lease agreement constituted a bona fide factual dispute requiring referral to oral evidence.
  3. 3 Whether eviction is just and equitable under section 4 of the PIE Act, considering the personal circumstances of the occupier and the impact of COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Jensen's reliance on an alleged oral lease agreement was not supported by objective evidence and was contradicted by Mr Levin's affidavit and contemporaneous WhatsApp messages. The alleged factual dispute was not real, genuine, or bona fide, and could be robustly rejected on the papers. Mr Jensen was in unlawful occupation, and no valid defence was established. The court considered the requirements of justice and equity under the PIE Act, including Mr Jensen's age, health, and financial circumstances, but found his claims of vulnerability unsubstantiated. The interests of Mr Levin as the property owner and his reliance on rental income were also weighed. The appeal...

Court Disposition

Appeal against eviction order dismissed; costs order amended; eviction order suspended pending amendment of lockdown regulations.

Orders

  • The appellants are granted condonation for late filing, with costs of condonation application to be costs in the appeal.
  • The costs order made by the magistrate is set aside and replaced with an order that the first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs jointly and severally on the party and party scale.