Elit (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Phekani N.O. and Others (24535/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 138 (2 May 2018)

Elit (SA) (Pty) Ltd v Phekani N.O. and Others (24535/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 138 (2 May 2018)

The applicant is the undisputed owner of the property. The respondents' occupation was initially permitted under agreements for the purchase of shares in the applicant, but those agreements were breached due to non-payment. This breach triggered a month-to-month tenancy, terminable on 30 days' written notice. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 138
Parties
Applicant: Elit (SA) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Stanley Chester Phekani N.O.; Respondent: Stanley Chester Phekani; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of No 2 Woodside Avenue, Sandhurst, Sandton; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 May 2018
Case Number
24535/2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents to vacate property within 30 calendar days; costs awarded against first and second respondents.
Judges
Graves AJ
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Rei Vindicatio, Joinder, Notice Requirements, Month to Month Tenancy
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Rei Vindicatio Joinder Notice Requirements Month to Month Tenancy

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elit (SA) (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Stanley Chester Phekani N.O.

Respondent

Stanley Chester Phekani

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers of No 2 Woodside Avenue, Sandhurst, Sandton

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have any legal right to continue occupying the property owned by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the procedural requirements of section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' occupation constitutes unlawful occupation under the PIE Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the undisputed owner of the property. The respondents' occupation was initially permitted under agreements for the purchase of shares in the applicant, but those agreements were breached due to non-payment. This breach triggered a month-to-month tenancy, terminable on 30 days' written notice. The respondents admitted indebtedness for rental and municipal charges, and no valid defence to eviction was raised. The procedural requirements of section 4 of the PIE Act were satisfied: effective notice was served, and the respondents were represented and understood the proceedings. Joinder of the shareholder was not necessary, as the right to evict vested solely in the applicant...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents to vacate property within 30 calendar days; costs awarded against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents and all persons claiming occupation through them must vacate the property at 2 Woodside Avenue, Sandhurst, Sandton within 30 calendar days of this order.
  • If the respondents and those claiming occupation through them do not vacate within 30 days, the Sheriff of the High Court is authorised to evict them.