Firstrand Bank Ltd v Slabbert and Others (5398/2011) [2013] ZAFSHC 30 (20 March 2013)
The court found that the authority of the deponent was not properly challenged in terms of rule 7(1), and that the application was prosecuted by attorneys whose authority was not disputed. The trust had no right to lease the property, was never the owner, and the applicant became the registered owner by deed of transfer. The 3rd respondent had no valid legal right to remain in occupation, having failed to pay rent for almost a year. The objections raised by the 3rd respondent regarding authority, sale notice, and transfer registration were without merit. Accordingly, the eviction order was granted.
- Citation
- [2013] ZAFSHC 30
- Parties
- Applicant: Firstrand Bank Ltd; Respondent: Chris Slabbert; Respondent: Aletta Johanna Slabbert; Respondent: All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying portion of Erf 1982 Bloemfontein, also known as 22 Deane Street, Waverley, Bloemfontein; Respondent: Mangaung Local Municipality
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 20 March 2013
- Case Number
- 5398/2011
- Procedural Posture
- Eviction Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
- Outcome
- Eviction order granted against the 3rd respondent; application succeeded.
- Judges
- S Ebrahim
- Legal Topics
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Authority of Deponent, Sale in Execution, Registration of Transfer, Unlawful Occupation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Firstrand Bank Ltd
Applicant
Chris Slabbert
Respondent
Aletta Johanna Slabbert
Respondent
All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying portion of Erf 1982 Bloemfontein, also known as 22 Deane Street, Waverley, Bloemfontein
Respondent
Mangaung Local Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment After Opposed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's deponent had proper authority to institute and prosecute the eviction proceedings.
- 2 Whether the notice advertising the sale in execution was valid given the incorrect street address.
- 3 Whether the registration of transfer to the applicant was valid despite the sequestration of the trust.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the authority of the deponent was not properly challenged in terms of rule 7(1), and that the application was prosecuted by attorneys whose authority was not disputed. The trust had no right to lease the property, was never the owner, and the applicant became the registered owner by deed of transfer. The 3rd respondent had no valid legal right to remain in occupation, having failed to pay rent for almost a year. The objections raised by the 3rd respondent regarding authority, sale notice, and transfer registration were without merit. Accordingly, the eviction order was granted.
Court Disposition
Eviction order granted against the 3rd respondent; application succeeded.
Orders
- The 3rd respondent is evicted from the premises at 22 Deane Street, Waverley, Bloemfontein.
- The applicant is entitled to take possession of the property.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment