Grobler v Phillips and Others (CCT 243/21) [2022] ZACC 32; 2023 (1) SA 321 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 115 (CC) (20 September 2022)

Grobler v Phillips and Others (CCT 243/21) [2022] ZACC 32; 2023 (1) SA 321 (CC); 2024 (1) BCLR 115 (CC) (20 September 2022)

The Constitutional Court held that the Supreme Court of Appeal erred by placing undue weight on Mrs Phillips' wishes and personal preferences, which are not relevant under PIE. The Court found that Mrs Phillips is an unlawful occupier, as her alleged right of habitatio was not registered and thus unenforceable against Mr Grobler. The applicant made repeated, reasonable offers of alternative accommodation and relocation assistance, which Mrs Phillips refused without making counter-offers. The Court emphasized that PIE requires a balance between the rights of the owner and the occupier, and that indefinite occupation by an unlawful occupier is not just and equitable. The Court concluded...

Citation
[2022] ZACC 32
Parties
Applicant: Willem Grobler; Respondent: Clara Phillips; Respondent: Johan Venter N.O.; Respondent: Helderberg Municipality
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Case Number
CCT 243/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court and Magistrates' Court
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal order set aside and substituted with an order requiring the applicant to purchase a suitable dwelling for the respondents, with a lifetime right of residence and relocation assistance.
Judges
Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Proceedings, Just and Equitable Remedy, Right of Habitatio, Alternative Accommodation, Section 26 Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Proceedings Just and Equitable Remedy Right of Habitatio Alternative Accommodation +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Grobler

Applicant

Clara Phillips

Respondent

Johan Venter N.O.

Respondent

Helderberg Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court of Appeal, After High Court and Magistrates' Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable under section 4(7) of PIE to order the eviction of Mrs Clara Phillips and her disabled son from the property.
  2. 2 Whether Mrs Phillips is an unlawful occupier under PIE and whether reasonable notice of termination was given.
  3. 3 Whether the wishes or personal preferences of an unlawful occupier are relevant in determining a just and equitable eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the Supreme Court of Appeal erred by placing undue weight on Mrs Phillips' wishes and personal preferences, which are not relevant under PIE. The Court found that Mrs Phillips is an unlawful occupier, as her alleged right of habitatio was not registered and thus unenforceable against Mr Grobler. The applicant made repeated, reasonable offers of alternative accommodation and relocation assistance, which Mrs Phillips refused without making counter-offers. The Court emphasized that PIE requires a balance between the rights of the owner and the occupier, and that indefinite occupation by an unlawful occupier is not just and equitable. The Court concluded...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; Supreme Court of Appeal order set aside and substituted with an order requiring the applicant to purchase a suitable dwelling for the respondents, with a lifetime right of residence and relocation assistance.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.