Boshoga and Another v Mmakolo and Others (82446/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 656 (7 March 2018)

Boshoga and Another v Mmakolo and Others (82446/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 656 (7 March 2018)

The court found that the applicants are the registered owners and the respondents occupy the property unlawfully. The first respondent's belief that he would be allowed to purchase the property was unreasonable and unsupported by facts. He was aware of the applicants' ownership as early as 2006, yet continued to build and derive income from the property without consent. The evidence provided for the alleged improvements was insufficient, consisting only of handwritten notes without supporting documentation. The court held that the first respondent, as a mala fide possessor who acquired occupation unlawfully, cannot rely on a lien to resist eviction. The respondent's conduct, including...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 656
Parties
Applicant: Lehumo Benjamin Boshoga; Applicant: Sonto Johanna Boshoga; Respondent: TJ Mmakolo; Respondent: Unlawful Occupiers Portion [….], Gauteng Province; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan City
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2018
Case Number
82446/2016
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction and Costs
Outcome
Eviction order granted against first and second respondents; punitive costs order against first respondent.
Judges
Ranchod
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Pie Act, Unlawful Occupation, Lien for Improvements, Unjust Enrichment, Right of Retention
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Under Pie Act Unlawful Occupation Lien for Improvements Unjust Enrichment Right of Retention

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 7 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lehumo Benjamin Boshoga

Applicant

Sonto Johanna Boshoga

Applicant

TJ Mmakolo

Respondent

Unlawful Occupiers Portion [….], Gauteng Province

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan City

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents are in unlawful occupation of the property within the meaning of the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is entitled to resist eviction on the basis of a lien for improvements made to the property.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent's claim for compensation for improvements is supported by sufficient evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are the registered owners and the respondents occupy the property unlawfully. The first respondent's belief that he would be allowed to purchase the property was unreasonable and unsupported by facts. He was aware of the applicants' ownership as early as 2006, yet continued to build and derive income from the property without consent. The evidence provided for the alleged improvements was insufficient, consisting only of handwritten notes without supporting documentation. The court held that the first respondent, as a mala fide possessor who acquired occupation unlawfully, cannot rely on a lien to resist eviction. The respondent's conduct, including...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against first and second respondents; punitive costs order against first respondent.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents and any person occupying through them the property known as Portion [….], Province of Gauteng, are evicted from the said property.
  • The first and second respondents and any person occupying through them the property known as Portion [….], Province of Gauteng, are ordered to vacate the said property within thirty (30) days of this order.