Boyles and Another v Tawana and Another (A3072/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 33 (20 February 2019)

Boyles and Another v Tawana and Another (A3072/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 33 (20 February 2019)

The appeal was limited to the timing of the eviction order, not the substantive relief. The court found that the magistrate had complied with the PIE Act and considered the appellants' circumstances. However, the period in question (end of September 2018) had already passed, rendering the appeal moot. The appellants failed to prosecute the appeal diligently, did not appear at the hearing, and did not file heads of argument. The court held that no purpose would be served by striking the appeal from the roll and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 33
Parties
Appellant: Charles Winston Boyles; Appellant: Theresa Ann Boyles; Respondent: Tshepo Jacob Tawana; Respondent: Duduzile Cynthia Zwane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Case Number
A3072/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
V V Thlapi, L R Adams
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Relief

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

Parties

Charles Winston Boyles

Appellant

Theresa Ann Boyles

Appellant

Tshepo Jacob Tawana

Respondent

Duduzile Cynthia Zwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the magistrate erred in setting the eviction date during winter months, causing potential prejudice to the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether it would have been just and equitable to extend the date of eviction to the end of September 2018 considering the appellants' personal circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was limited to the timing of the eviction order, not the substantive relief. The court found that the magistrate had complied with the PIE Act and considered the appellants' circumstances. However, the period in question (end of September 2018) had already passed, rendering the appeal moot. The appellants failed to prosecute the appeal diligently, did not appear at the hearing, and did not file heads of argument. The court held that no purpose would be served by striking the appeal from the roll and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appellants' appeal is dismissed with costs.