B.T.T v A.T and Others (1053/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1152 (11 November 2024)

B.T.T v A.T and Others (1053/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1152 (11 November 2024)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having acquired ownership lawfully under ULTRA. The respondents have occupied the property for over six months without the applicant's consent and have not paid rent or contributed to municipal or bond payments. The respondents' claim of fraud in the transfer is unsupported by evidence, and no appeal was lodged against the conversion. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, taking into account the respondents' personal circumstances, including their vulnerability and risk of homelessness. The City of Johannesburg confirmed the respondents would face homelessness but are eligible for temporary...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1152
Parties
Applicant: B[...] T[...] T[...]; Respondent: A[...] T[...]; Respondent: Zamokhuhle Monate; Respondent: Phindokuhle Zwane; Respondent: All Other Unlawful Occupants of Erf 3[...] O[...] E[...] Soweto; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 November 2024
Case Number
1053/2020
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents declared unlawful occupiers and ordered to vacate property by 28 March 2025; municipality ordered to provide temporary emergency housing; no order as to costs.
Judges
Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Just and Equitable Eviction, Section 26 Constitution, Municipal Obligations, Condonation of Late Filing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Just and Equitable Eviction Section 26 Constitution Municipal Obligations +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B[...] T[...] T[...]

Applicant

A[...] T[...]

Respondent

Zamokhuhle Monate

Respondent

Phindokuhle Zwane

Respondent

All Other Unlawful Occupants of Erf 3[...] O[...] E[...] Soweto

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers of the property.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to order the eviction of the respondents under the PIE Act.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's late filing of the replying affidavit should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having acquired ownership lawfully under ULTRA. The respondents have occupied the property for over six months without the applicant's consent and have not paid rent or contributed to municipal or bond payments. The respondents' claim of fraud in the transfer is unsupported by evidence, and no appeal was lodged against the conversion. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, taking into account the respondents' personal circumstances, including their vulnerability and risk of homelessness. The City of Johannesburg confirmed the respondents would face homelessness but are eligible for temporary...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents declared unlawful occupiers and ordered to vacate property by 28 March 2025; municipality ordered to provide temporary emergency housing; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The late filing of the replying affidavit by the applicant is condoned.
  • The first, second, third respondents and all those who occupy the premises known as Erf 3[...], O[...] E[...], Soweto by virtue of the respondents' occupancy are declared unlawful occupiers.