First Rand Bank Limited v Fondse and Others (65596/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 316 (4 May 2018)

First Rand Bank Limited v Fondse and Others (65596/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 316 (4 May 2018)

The applicant was not the registered owner nor the person in charge of the property at the time the eviction application was launched. The conditions of sale and correspondence did not establish that the applicant had control over the property. The subsequent registration of ownership in the applicant's name...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 316
Parties
Applicant: First Rand Bank Limited; Respondent: Adriaan Rudolph Fondse; Respondent: Cecilia Gertruida Fondse; Respondent: All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Erf 743, Muckleneuk Extension 3 Township, also known as 336 Bourke Street, Pretoria, Gauteng; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Case Number
65596/17
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Determination of Locus Standi as Point in Limine
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
Mdalana-Mayisela
Legal Topics
Eviction, Locus Standi, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Locus Standi Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Rand Bank Limited

Applicant

Adriaan Rudolph Fondse

Respondent

Cecilia Gertruida Fondse

Respondent

All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Erf 743, Muckleneuk Extension 3 Township, also known as 336 Bourke Street, Pretoria, Gauteng

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Determination of Locus Standi as Point in Limine

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi to launch the eviction application at the time it was instituted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was the registered owner or person in charge of the property when the application was launched.
  3. 3 Whether the defect in locus standi could be cured by subsequent registration of ownership.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not the registered owner nor the person in charge of the property at the time the eviction application was launched. The conditions of sale and correspondence did not establish that the applicant had control over the property. The subsequent registration of ownership in the applicant's name occurred months after the application was instituted and could not cure the defect in locus standi. The Supreme Court of Appeal has held that a purchaser acquires standing to evict only upon transfer of ownership. Accordingly, the applicant lacked the requisite legal standing to bring the application, and the point in limine was upheld.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant lacked the requisite locus standi to launch this application at the relevant time.
  • The application is dismissed.