Ebrahim NO and Others v Mohamed and Others (40478/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 516 (17 March 2017)

Ebrahim NO and Others v Mohamed and Others (40478/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 516 (17 March 2017)

The court found that the respondents' pending rescission application does not automatically suspend the eviction proceedings, as only applications for leave to appeal are covered by Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Suspension of execution must be sought specifically under Rule 45A, which the respondents did not do. The applicants complied with all procedural requirements of the PIE Act, including proper service of the Section 4(2) Notice and the eviction application. The respondents were adequately informed of the proceedings and had the opportunity to oppose and present their case. No facts were placed before the court indicating the presence of vulnerable persons or lack of...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 516
Parties
Applicant: Shabbir Ebrahim N.O; Applicant: Imran Ebrahim N.O; Applicant: Shereen Ahmed Ebrahim N.O; Respondent: Abdulhamid Ebrahim Mohamed; Respondent: Khatija Dawood Mahomed; Respondent: The Occupiers; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2017
Case Number
40478/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Eviction application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property within 20 days; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
Mokoena
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Procedure, Stay of Execution, Service of Notice, Court Discretion, Municipal Services Liability
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Procedure Stay of Execution Service of Notice Court Discretion Municipal Services Liability

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

Parties

Shabbir Ebrahim N.O

Applicant

Imran Ebrahim N.O

Applicant

Shereen Ahmed Ebrahim N.O

Applicant

Abdulhamid Ebrahim Mohamed

Respondent

Khatija Dawood Mahomed

Respondent

The Occupiers

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the pending rescission of judgment application suspend or stay the eviction proceedings.
  2. 2 Were the applicants required to obtain authorisation to serve another Section 4(2) Notice after the matter was removed from the unopposed roll.
  3. 3 Did the applicants comply with the procedural requirements of the PIE Act for eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' pending rescission application does not automatically suspend the eviction proceedings, as only applications for leave to appeal are covered by Section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. Suspension of execution must be sought specifically under Rule 45A, which the respondents did not do. The applicants complied with all procedural requirements of the PIE Act, including proper service of the Section 4(2) Notice and the eviction application. The respondents were adequately informed of the proceedings and had the opportunity to oppose and present their case. No facts were placed before the court indicating the presence of vulnerable persons or lack of...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; respondents ordered to vacate property within 20 days; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application for eviction succeeds.
  • The First, Second and Third Respondents and all those who occupy the premises known as ERF 1344 CLAUDIUS EXT 1, GAUTENG, also known as 282 2nd Avenue, Claudius, Gauteng, are evicted within twenty (20) days from the date of service of this order.