Botha and Another v Coetzee and Others (4847/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 380 (13 April 2025)

Botha and Another v Coetzee and Others (4847/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 380 (13 April 2025)

The court found that the First and Second Respondents are unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act, having no consent or legal right to occupy the property following the liquidation of the company that owned it. The Applicants, as duly appointed liquidators, have locus standi to bring the eviction application. The Respondents' reliance on the Extension of Security of Tenure Act was misplaced, as the property is urban and the Respondents do not meet the statutory criteria. The Respondents failed to present any valid defence or circumstances warranting continued occupation. The court held that eviction is just and equitable, as continued occupation prejudices the creditors and obstructs...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 380
Parties
Applicant: Deon Marius Botha NO; Applicant: Retha Stochoff NO; Respondent: Zelma Esme Coetzee; Respondent: All Occupiers of Erf 1[...]; Respondent: City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 April 2025
Case Number
4847/2023
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; First and Second Respondents ordered to vacate the property.
Judges
Matsemela
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Locus Standi, Liquidation, Extension of Security of Tenure Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Locus Standi Liquidation Extension of Security of Tenure Act

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

Parties

Deon Marius Botha NO

Applicant

Retha Stochoff NO

Applicant

Zelma Esme Coetzee

Respondent

All Occupiers of Erf 1[...]

Respondent

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First and Second Respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicants, as liquidators, have locus standi to seek eviction.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First and Second Respondents are unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act, having no consent or legal right to occupy the property following the liquidation of the company that owned it. The Applicants, as duly appointed liquidators, have locus standi to bring the eviction application. The Respondents' reliance on the Extension of Security of Tenure Act was misplaced, as the property is urban and the Respondents do not meet the statutory criteria. The Respondents failed to present any valid defence or circumstances warranting continued occupation. The court held that eviction is just and equitable, as continued occupation prejudices the creditors and obstructs...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; First and Second Respondents ordered to vacate the property.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are hereby evicted from 1[...] G[...] Road, L[...] Boksburg.
  • The Sheriff of this Court is authorised to execute the order for eviction.