Concrete Investments CC v Mahabeer (2237/2011) [2011] ZAKZDHC 76 (9 December 2011)

Concrete Investments CC v Mahabeer (2237/2011) [2011] ZAKZDHC 76 (9 December 2011)

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding the alleged oral lease agreement to be unreliable, evasive, and lacking credibility. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence of such agreement. The applicant established ownership of the property, and the respondent's occupation was found to be unlawful. The procedural requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act were satisfied, as the notice served achieved its intended purpose and the respondent was aware of his rights and the case he had to meet. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order with costs.

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Concrete Investments CC; Respondent: Keith Mahabeer
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 December 2011
Case Number
2237/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Hearing After Referral for Oral Evidence
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondent with costs.
Judges
Steyn
Legal Topics
Eviction, Oral Lease Agreement, Unlawful Occupation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Onus of Proof
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Oral Lease Agreement Unlawful Occupation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Onus of Proof

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Concrete Investments CC

Applicant

Keith Mahabeer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Hearing After Referral for Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has a right to occupy the premises in terms of an alleged oral lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the procedural requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998, were complied with.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding the alleged oral lease agreement to be unreliable, evasive, and lacking credibility. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving the existence of such agreement. The applicant established ownership of the property, and the respondent's occupation was found to be unlawful. The procedural requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act were satisfied, as the notice served achieved its intended purpose and the respondent was aware of his rights and the case he had to meet. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order with costs.

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondent with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to vacate the property at 5th Floor, Ebrahim Al Ebrahim, 85/87 Victoria Street Durban, forthwith.
  • Should the respondent fail or refuse to comply, the Sheriff or his deputy is authorised to eject the respondent from the premises.