Gundwna v Steko Development CC (A379/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 365 (27 February 2010)

Gundwna v Steko Development CC (A379/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 365 (27 February 2010)

The court found that the appellant, having lost ownership through sale in execution and transfer to the respondent, had no legal right to occupy the property and was therefore an unlawful occupier under the PIE Act. The PIE Act's definition was strictly applied, and no evidence was presented of any right to occupy granted by the respondent. The court further held that section 26 of the Constitution does not confer a right to ownership or to a specific dwelling, but only a right of access to adequate housing. The PIE Act does not apply to business premises, and the eviction process followed both statutory and common law requirements. The Constitutional Court's guidance in Jaftha v Schoeman...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 365
Parties
Appellant: Elsie Gundwana; Respondent: Steko Development CC
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2010
Case Number
A379/2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision on Eviction and Postponement
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; judgment of the magistrate's court confirmed.
Judges
Van Reenen, Yekiso
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Proceedings, Section 26 Right to Housing, Sale in Execution, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Magistrates Court Procedure
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Occupation Eviction Proceedings Section 26 Right to Housing Sale in Execution Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elsie Gundwana

Appellant

Steko Development CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Decision on Eviction and Postponement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is an unlawful occupier under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate erred in granting eviction without considering section 26(1) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the PIE Act applies to business premises.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant, having lost ownership through sale in execution and transfer to the respondent, had no legal right to occupy the property and was therefore an unlawful occupier under the PIE Act. The PIE Act's definition was strictly applied, and no evidence was presented of any right to occupy granted by the respondent. The court further held that section 26 of the Constitution does not confer a right to ownership or to a specific dwelling, but only a right of access to adequate housing. The PIE Act does not apply to business premises, and the eviction process followed both statutory and common law requirements. The Constitutional Court's guidance in Jaftha v Schoeman...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; judgment of the magistrate's court confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The judgment of the court a quo is confirmed.