Hamusira v Minister of Defence (14570/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 113 (9 May 2012)

Hamusira v Minister of Defence (14570/12) [2012] ZAGPPHC 113 (9 May 2012)

The court found that the order of 10 May 2011 was intended to provide remedies for the applicant pending the repair of the Buffel Street house. Since the house has not been repaired and the respondent's chosen option (allocation of the Eland Street house) is no longer available, the respondent remains obliged to provide one of the alternative remedies specified in the original order. The respondent's argument that its obligations have been discharged is rejected. The court further held that the respondent's conduct does not amount to contempt of court, as the order was capable of two interpretations and legal advice was obtained. The applicant is therefore entitled to the relief sought in...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 113
Parties
Applicant: J Hamusira; Respondent: Minister of Defence
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2012
Case Number
14570/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Enforcement of Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application granted; respondent ordered to comply with prayer 3 and pay costs.
Judges
A.A. Louw
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Court Orders, Right to Housing, Contempt of Court
Civil Procedure Land and Property Enforcement of Court Orders Right to Housing Contempt of Court

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

Parties

J Hamusira

Applicant

Minister of Defence

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Enforcement of Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the previous court order of 10 May 2011 remains operative and enforceable.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is obliged to provide suitable accommodation pending the repair of the Buffel Street house.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 10 May 2011 was intended to provide remedies for the applicant pending the repair of the Buffel Street house. Since the house has not been repaired and the respondent's chosen option (allocation of the Eland Street house) is no longer available, the respondent remains obliged to provide one of the alternative remedies specified in the original order. The respondent's argument that its obligations have been discharged is rejected. The court further held that the respondent's conduct does not amount to contempt of court, as the order was capable of two interpretations and legal advice was obtained. The applicant is therefore entitled to the relief sought in...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent ordered to comply with prayer 3 and pay costs.

Orders

  • The order in terms of prayer 3 of the notice of motion is granted.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.