Basi and Another v Prinsloo and Others (45721/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 600 (17 September 2021)

Basi and Another v Prinsloo and Others (45721/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 600 (17 September 2021)

The court found that the applicants are the lawful owners of the property and that the respondents' occupation became unlawful upon cancellation of the lease agreement on 12 February 2018. The respondents' defence, based on an alleged commission owed, was irrelevant to the eviction proceedings and did not constitute a valid defence under the PIE Act. The respondents failed to demonstrate that they would suffer undue prejudice or that their constitutional rights to adequate housing would be infringed, as alternative accommodation is available and they have had ample opportunity to seek it. The court held that the applicants have discharged their onus to show that eviction is just and...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 600
Parties
Applicant: Bhekicebo Pius Basi; Applicant: Mabli Favourite Basi; Respondent: Cornelia Magrietha Prinsloo; Respondent: Hendrik Petrus Prinsloo; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers Residing at [....] Pretoria, Gauteng; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
45721/19
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first, second, and third respondents and all persons claiming occupation under them. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents.
Judges
Tlhapi VV
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Under Pie Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Adequate Housing Rights, Lease Agreement Breach
Land and Property Civil Procedure Unlawful Occupation Eviction Under Pie Act Just and Equitable Eviction Adequate Housing Rights Lease Agreement Breach

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhekicebo Pius Basi

Applicant

Mabli Favourite Basi

Applicant

Cornelia Magrietha Prinsloo

Respondent

Hendrik Petrus Prinsloo

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers Residing at [....] Pretoria, Gauteng

Respondent

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act and subject to eviction.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order considering all relevant circumstances, including the respondents' alleged vulnerability and housing needs.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' claim for commission constitutes a valid defence to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are the lawful owners of the property and that the respondents' occupation became unlawful upon cancellation of the lease agreement on 12 February 2018. The respondents' defence, based on an alleged commission owed, was irrelevant to the eviction proceedings and did not constitute a valid defence under the PIE Act. The respondents failed to demonstrate that they would suffer undue prejudice or that their constitutional rights to adequate housing would be infringed, as alternative accommodation is available and they have had ample opportunity to seek it. The court held that the applicants have discharged their onus to show that eviction is just and...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first, second, and third respondents and all persons claiming occupation under them. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents and all those claiming occupation under them are immediately evicted from the property.
  • The respondents must vacate the property within 60 days after service of this order; failing which the Sheriff is authorised to evict them and all persons holding under them.