Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 (873/2012) [2013] ZASCA 162; [2014] 1 All SA 386 (SCA); 2014 (3) SA 23 (SCA) (26 November 2013)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 (873/2012) [2013] ZASCA 162; [2014] 1 All SA 386 (SCA); 2014 (3) SA 23 (SCA) (26 November 2013)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to demonstrate that eviction of the respondents would be just and equitable under PIE. The allocation process for the housing development was compromised by conflicting policies, lack of transparency, and arbitrary beneficiary selection. The municipality and provincial department did not adequately explain the criteria used or address the legitimate expectations of the local community. While the respondents' conduct in unlawfully occupying the houses was censured, the court found that the historical context and failures by the authorities tempered the initial lack of sympathy. The appellants did not discharge the onus of proving...

Citation
[2013] ZASCA 162
Parties
Appellant: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Appellant: Gauteng Department of Housing; Respondent: Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2013
Case Number
873/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Ponnan, Malan, Majiedt, Willis, Saldulker
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Right to Adequate Housing, Just and Equitable Eviction, Allocation of Subsidised Housing, Rule of Law, Onus of Proof in Eviction
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Right to Adequate Housing Just and Equitable Eviction Allocation of Subsidised Housing Rule of Law +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Appellant

Gauteng Department of Housing

Appellant

Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable to order the eviction of the respondents from Eden Park Extension 5 under PIE.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants complied with constitutional and statutory obligations in the allocation process.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents in occupying the houses unlawfully should preclude relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants failed to demonstrate that eviction of the respondents would be just and equitable under PIE. The allocation process for the housing development was compromised by conflicting policies, lack of transparency, and arbitrary beneficiary selection. The municipality and provincial department did not adequately explain the criteria used or address the legitimate expectations of the local community. While the respondents' conduct in unlawfully occupying the houses was censured, the court found that the historical context and failures by the authorities tempered the initial lack of sympathy. The appellants did not discharge the onus of proving...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, such costs to include those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.