First Rand Bank Ltd v Ndamase and Another (024968/24) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1133 (12 November 2024)

First Rand Bank Ltd v Ndamase and Another (024968/24) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1133 (12 November 2024)

The court found that the First Respondent's lease agreement with the previous owner expired and no new lease was concluded with the Applicant. The demand for rental payment did not constitute a valid lease agreement, as such agreements for immovable property must be in writing. The First Respondent remained in...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1133
Parties
Applicant: First Rand Bank Ltd; Respondent: Mandlakayise Prince Ndamase; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Case Number
024968/24
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the First Respondent; costs awarded to the Applicant on attorney-client scale.
Judges
BM Lesufi
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Test
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Test

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Rand Bank Ltd

Applicant

Mandlakayise Prince Ndamase

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent has any existing legal right to occupy the property.
  2. 2 Whether the occupation by the First Respondent is lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of the PIE Act have been complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent's lease agreement with the previous owner expired and no new lease was concluded with the Applicant. The demand for rental payment did not constitute a valid lease agreement, as such agreements for immovable property must be in writing. The First Respondent remained in occupation without any legal right. The Applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including service of notices to both the Respondent and the municipality. The First Respondent did not present any defence in law or evidence that eviction would render him homeless. The court determined that it was just and equitable to grant the eviction order, and...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the First Respondent; costs awarded to the Applicant on attorney-client scale.

Orders

  • The Respondent, his successor in title, and anyone holding occupation under or through him, must vacate the premises at 4[...] A[...] Crescent Kyalami Estate, Kyalami, within 30 days from the date of this order.
  • If the Respondent fails to vacate within 30 days, the Sheriff of the Jurisdiction is authorised to evict the Respondent.