Brodie and Others v Kgosamang and Others (2019/32683) [2019] ZAGPJHC 475 (30 October 2019)

Brodie and Others v Kgosamang and Others (2019/32683) [2019] ZAGPJHC 475 (30 October 2019)

The court held that the pending application for leave to appeal did not suspend the eviction order, as the application for condonation had not been granted and the applicants had delayed prosecution for an extended period. However, the eviction was unlawful because the respondents failed to provide proper notice and did not seek a new just and equitable date for eviction after the original date had passed. PIE requires that eviction be executed fairly, with adequate notice and a date determined by the court. The respondents' conduct in evicting the applicants without notice was found to be scandalous and unlawful. The applicants were entitled to reinstatement and to receive at least 30...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 475
Parties
Applicant: Marie Antoinette Brodie; Applicant: The Unlawful Occupiers of Erf 1161 Greymont Township, 16 2nd Road, Greytown Gauteng; Respondent: Mosimaneotsile Michael Kgomasang; Respondent: Andries Bjala Thapedi Bhola Bokaba; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 October 2019
Case Number
2019/32683
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Urgent Order Following Eviction and Reinstatement
Outcome
The eviction of the applicants on 10 October 2019 was declared unlawful and the applicants were ordered to be reinstated on the property.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Procedure, Notice Requirements, Sale in Execution, Just and Equitable Eviction Date
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Procedure Notice Requirements Sale in Execution Just and Equitable Eviction Date

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Antoinette Brodie

Applicant

The Unlawful Occupiers of Erf 1161 Greymont Township, 16 2nd Road, Greytown Gauteng

Applicant

Mosimaneotsile Michael Kgomasang

Respondent

Andries Bjala Thapedi Bhola Bokaba

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Urgent Order Following Eviction and Reinstatement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does a pending application for leave to appeal suspend the execution of an eviction order?
  2. 2 Was the eviction of the applicants on 10 October 2019 lawful in the absence of proper notice and a new just and equitable date?.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pending application for leave to appeal did not suspend the eviction order, as the application for condonation had not been granted and the applicants had delayed prosecution for an extended period. However, the eviction was unlawful because the respondents failed to provide proper notice and did not seek a new just and equitable date for eviction after the original date had passed. PIE requires that eviction be executed fairly, with adequate notice and a date determined by the court. The respondents' conduct in evicting the applicants without notice was found to be scandalous and unlawful. The applicants were entitled to reinstatement and to receive at least 30...

Court Disposition

The eviction of the applicants on 10 October 2019 was declared unlawful and the applicants were ordered to be reinstated on the property.

Orders

  • It is declared that the applicants' eviction on 10 October 2019 was unlawful.
  • The respondents are ordered to restore the applicants' occupation of Erf 1161 Greymont Township forthwith.