A.P and Another v Cohen and Others (Appeal) (A 216/2024 ; 21188/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 66 (24 February 2025)

A.P and Another v Cohen and Others (Appeal) (A 216/2024 ; 21188/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 66 (24 February 2025)

The appeal succeeded on the grounds that the court a quo failed to comply with its obligations under PIE by not adequately investigating the Appellants’ personal circumstances, the risk of homelessness, and the interests of the minor children. The court a quo did not obtain sufficient information from the parties or the City to determine whether the eviction order would be just and equitable. The absence of a City report and failure to facilitate completion of the housing questionnaire meant the court was not fully informed. The court also failed to inquire into the children’s circumstances and did not ensure the First Appellant’s right to legal representation was properly facilitated....

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 66
Parties
Appellant: A[...] P[...]; Appellant: All Other Occupiers; Respondent: Gerald Cohen; Respondent: Leslie Cohen; Respondent: City of Cape Town
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 February 2025
Case Number
A216/2024 ; 21188/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Unopposed Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; matter reinstated on opposed roll for proper determination.
Judges
Erasmus, Lekhuleni, Bhoopchand
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Children Rights in Eviction, Municipal Obligations, Unopposed Motion Procedure, Legal Representation Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Children Rights in Eviction Municipal Obligations Unopposed Motion Procedure +1 more

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 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A[...] P[...]

Appellant

All Other Occupiers

Appellant

Gerald Cohen

Respondent

Leslie Cohen

Respondent

City of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Full Bench Appeal From Unopposed Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the court a quo comply with its obligations under sections 4(7) and (8) of PIE before granting the eviction order?
  2. 2 Was the eviction order just and equitable, considering all relevant circumstances, including the risk of homelessness and the interests of minor children?
  3. 3 Did the court a quo err by failing to appoint an interpreter or adequately inquire into the First Appellant's language needs?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded on the grounds that the court a quo failed to comply with its obligations under PIE by not adequately investigating the Appellants’ personal circumstances, the risk of homelessness, and the interests of the minor children. The court a quo did not obtain sufficient information from the parties or the City to determine whether the eviction order would be just and equitable. The absence of a City report and failure to facilitate completion of the housing questionnaire meant the court was not fully informed. The court also failed to inquire into the children’s circumstances and did not ensure the First Appellant’s right to legal representation was properly facilitated....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; matter reinstated on opposed roll for proper determination.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The First Appellant shall bear the wasted costs of the hearing of this appeal on 22 January 2025; Counsel’s costs are to be taxed or agreed to on the B scale.