Bless Joe Trading CC v Ethekwini Municipality (D7596/2020) [2025] ZAKZDHC 37 (11 June 2025)

Bless Joe Trading CC v Ethekwini Municipality (D7596/2020) [2025] ZAKZDHC 37 (11 June 2025)

The court found that after the termination of the lease agreement, the defendant failed to remove the displaced people from the plaintiff's tent and ablution facilities, thereby preventing the plaintiff from regaining possession. The continued occupation constituted holding over, and the defendant, as a sphere of government, was liable for the damages arising from the loss of use of the plaintiff's property. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff voluntarily refrained from taking possession was rejected, as the defendant itself admitted that it had no alternative accommodation and could not have removed the people. The procurement process was found to be lawful, as the emergency...

Citation
[2025] ZAKZDHC 37
Parties
Plaintiff: Bless Joe Trading CC; Defendant: Ethekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 June 2025
Case Number
D7596/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant is liable for market-related damages for holding over, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
Mathenjwa
Legal Topics
Holding Over, Lease Agreement Termination, Damages for Loss of Use, Municipal Obligations, Preferential Procurement, Constitutional Right to Housing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Holding Over Lease Agreement Termination Damages for Loss of Use Municipal Obligations Preferential Procurement +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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bless Joe Trading CC

Plaintiff

Ethekwini Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the continued occupation of the plaintiff's marquee and ablution facilities by displaced people after termination of the lease constituted holding over.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant, as a sphere of government, is liable to the plaintiff for the holding over of its property by displaced people.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's conduct or omission made it practically impossible for the plaintiff to take possession of its property after termination of the lease agreement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that after the termination of the lease agreement, the defendant failed to remove the displaced people from the plaintiff's tent and ablution facilities, thereby preventing the plaintiff from regaining possession. The continued occupation constituted holding over, and the defendant, as a sphere of government, was liable for the damages arising from the loss of use of the plaintiff's property. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff voluntarily refrained from taking possession was rejected, as the defendant itself admitted that it had no alternative accommodation and could not have removed the people. The procurement process was found to be lawful, as the emergency...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant is liable for market-related damages for holding over, interest, and costs. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The defendant is directed to pay the market related amount of damages from 1 April 2020 to 17 March 2021 to the plaintiff, as agreed or proved.
  • Interest on the agreed or proved amount at the rate calculated from 1 April 2020 to date of final payment.