Dries v Venter NO and Others (24094/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 37; 2005 (6) SA 67 (T) (1 April 2005)

Dries v Venter NO and Others (24094/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 37; 2005 (6) SA 67 (T) (1 April 2005)

The court found that the applicant was obliged to comply with section 4 of PIE before seeking eviction, as the property included a house used for dwelling by the first respondent and potentially other vulnerable persons. The court rejected the applicant's argument that PIE did not apply simply because the respondents acted as trustees of a trust, noting that the actual occupation and use of the property for residential purposes brought the matter within the ambit of PIE. The absence of clear evidence regarding the presence of farm workers did not absolve the applicant from the statutory notice requirements, as the application sought eviction of all persons on the property. The application...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 37
Parties
Applicant: Helena Elizabeth Dries; Respondent: Siegfriedt Venter NO; Respondent: Barend Herman Venter NO; Respondent: Siegfriedt Edward Venter NO
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2005
Case Number
24094/04
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Point in Limine Regarding Statutory Compliance
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs due to non-compliance with section 4 of PIE.
Judges
Legodi MF
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Procedure, Statutory Notice Requirements, Lease Expiry, Oral Variation of Contract
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Procedure Statutory Notice Requirements Lease Expiry Oral Variation of Contract

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

Helena Elizabeth Dries

Applicant

Siegfriedt Venter NO

Respondent

Barend Herman Venter NO

Respondent

Siegfriedt Edward Venter NO

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Point in Limine Regarding Statutory Compliance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was obliged to comply with section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  2. 2 Whether the lease agreement was validly extended by oral agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction application was premature due to non-compliance with statutory notice requirements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was obliged to comply with section 4 of PIE before seeking eviction, as the property included a house used for dwelling by the first respondent and potentially other vulnerable persons. The court rejected the applicant's argument that PIE did not apply simply because the respondents acted as trustees of a trust, noting that the actual occupation and use of the property for residential purposes brought the matter within the ambit of PIE. The absence of clear evidence regarding the presence of farm workers did not absolve the applicant from the statutory notice requirements, as the application sought eviction of all persons on the property. The application...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs due to non-compliance with section 4 of PIE.

Orders

  • The application is struck off the roll with costs.