Drews and Another v Engelbrecht and Others (67012 / 2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1281 (7 December 2017)

Drews and Another v Engelbrecht and Others (67012 / 2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1281 (7 December 2017)

The court found that the lease agreement expired on 28 February 2016 and was not renewed. The parties entered into an offer to purchase, which regulated occupation pending transfer. The respondents failed to fulfil the suspensive condition (obtaining financing) and did not pay occupational rent. The applicants gave proper notice and cancelled the offer to purchase, rendering the respondents' occupation unlawful. The respondents could not rely on an enrichment lien as a defence because lawful possession is required for such a lien, and their occupation was unlawful after cancellation. The applicants complied with PIE procedures, including service of notice and provision of security for any...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1281
Parties
Applicant: Waldemar Witold Drews; Applicant: Malgorzata Drews; Respondent: Johannes Cornelius Engelbrecht; Respondent: Johanna Maria Engelbrecht; Respondent: Johannes Cornelius Engelbrecht N.O.; Respondent: Johanna Maria Engelbrecht N.O.; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2017
Case Number
67012 / 2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Eviction Application Under PIE
Outcome
Eviction application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.
Judges
Holland-Muter
Legal Topics
Prevention of Unlawful Eviction Act, Lease Agreement Termination, Occupational Rent, Enrichment Lien, Consumer Protection Act, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Unlawful Eviction Act Lease Agreement Termination Occupational Rent Enrichment Lien Consumer Protection Act Eviction Procedure

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

Parties

Waldemar Witold Drews

Applicant

Malgorzata Drews

Applicant

Johannes Cornelius Engelbrecht

Respondent

Johanna Maria Engelbrecht

Respondent

Johannes Cornelius Engelbrecht N.O.

Respondent

Johanna Maria Engelbrecht N.O.

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Eviction Application Under PIE

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' occupation of the property was lawful after the termination of the lease and cancellation of the offer to purchase.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction application was premature under PIE.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents could rely on an enrichment lien as a defence to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the lease agreement expired on 28 February 2016 and was not renewed. The parties entered into an offer to purchase, which regulated occupation pending transfer. The respondents failed to fulfil the suspensive condition (obtaining financing) and did not pay occupational rent. The applicants gave proper notice and cancelled the offer to purchase, rendering the respondents' occupation unlawful. The respondents could not rely on an enrichment lien as a defence because lawful possession is required for such a lien, and their occupation was unlawful after cancellation. The applicants complied with PIE procedures, including service of notice and provision of security for any...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.

Orders

  • The First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents are evicted from the immovable property on or before 30 November 2017.
  • The Sheriff is mandated to evict the respondents and their belongings if they fail to vacate by 30 November 2017.