Grobler v Phillips and Others (446/2020) [2021] ZASCA 100 (14 July 2021)

Grobler v Phillips and Others (446/2020) [2021] ZASCA 100 (14 July 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court was correct to allow the respondent to raise the application of ESTA on appeal, as the issue was a point of law and not precluded by the pre-trial agreement. The appellant failed to discharge the onus to prove that ESTA did not apply, but even if ESTA did not apply, the respondent was not an unlawful occupier under PIE due to the circumstances of her occupation and the nature of the notice given. The oral right to reside for life was not a legally enforceable habitatio, as it was not reduced to writing or registered. The court found that, given the respondent's advanced age, her long residence on the property, and her disabled son, it...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 100
Parties
Appellant: Willem Grobler; Respondent: Clara Phillips; Respondent: Johan Venter NO; Respondent: Helderberg Municipality
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 July 2021
Case Number
446/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. The order of the high court refusing eviction is upheld.
Judges
Petse, Dlodlo, Mocumie, Phatshoane, Goosen
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Onus of Proof, Just and Equitable Eviction, Oral Rights of Occupation, Constitutional Right to Housing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Extension of Security of Tenure Act Onus of Proof Just and Equitable Eviction Oral Rights of Occupation +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Willem Grobler

Appellant

Clara Phillips

Respondent

Johan Venter NO

Respondent

Helderberg Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court was correct to allow the respondent to raise the application of ESTA as a new issue on appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus to prove the respondent was an unlawful occupier under PIE.
  3. 3 Whether the oral right to reside for life constituted a legally enforceable habitatio.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court was correct to allow the respondent to raise the application of ESTA on appeal, as the issue was a point of law and not precluded by the pre-trial agreement. The appellant failed to discharge the onus to prove that ESTA did not apply, but even if ESTA did not apply, the respondent was not an unlawful occupier under PIE due to the circumstances of her occupation and the nature of the notice given. The oral right to reside for life was not a legally enforceable habitatio, as it was not reduced to writing or registered. The court found that, given the respondent's advanced age, her long residence on the property, and her disabled son, it...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed. The order of the high court refusing eviction is upheld.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is directed to pay such disbursements as may have been incurred by the first respondent’s attorneys in preparing for the appeal.