Goloda and Another v Ntozini and Another (186/2022) [2022] ZAECBHC 28 (27 September 2022)

Goloda and Another v Ntozini and Another (186/2022) [2022] ZAECBHC 28 (27 September 2022)

The court found that Goloda did not have locus standi to bring the eviction application, as she was not the registered owner and the executors, who are the persons in charge, did not participate as parties. The necessary authority and standing were not established in the founding affidavit. Even if locus standi were established, the applicant failed to prove that Ntozini was in unlawful occupation, as the facts regarding his occupation and consent were disputed and not adequately addressed in the founding papers. Applying the Plascon-Evans principle, the respondent's version prevails, and the application for eviction must fail.

Citation
[2022] ZAECBHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Andiswa Goloda; Applicant: The Executors of the Estate Late Pikile Koncoshe (Anthenkosi Koncoshe NO and Anelisa Hoho NO); Respondent: Andile Ntozini; Respondent: Buffalo City Metro Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 September 2022
Case Number
186/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Dreyer AJ
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Proceedings
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Unlawful Occupation Eviction Proceedings

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andiswa Goloda

Applicant

The Executors of the Estate Late Pikile Koncoshe (Anthenkosi Koncoshe NO and Anelisa Hoho NO)

Applicant

Andile Ntozini

Respondent

Buffalo City Metro Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have locus standi to bring eviction proceedings?
  2. 2 Is the respondent in unlawful occupation of the property under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE)?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Goloda did not have locus standi to bring the eviction application, as she was not the registered owner and the executors, who are the persons in charge, did not participate as parties. The necessary authority and standing were not established in the founding affidavit. Even if locus standi were established, the applicant failed to prove that Ntozini was in unlawful occupation, as the facts regarding his occupation and consent were disputed and not adequately addressed in the founding papers. Applying the Plascon-Evans principle, the respondent's version prevails, and the application for eviction must fail.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.