Harinoro and Another v LG Maroncowitz and Sons (Pty) Ptd and Another (2879/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 308 (2 May 2018)
The court found that the eviction order was erroneously sought and granted because the notice of set down was irregularly served at the premises rather than at the attorneys' address, and was applied for prematurely. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default, as the main applicant was out of the country and acted promptly upon learning of the proceedings. The applicants also raised a bona fide defence based on their purchase agreement, which had not been cancelled. The procedural irregularities and the existence of a bona fide defence justified rescission of the eviction order.
- Citation
- [2018] ZAGPPHC 308
- Parties
- Applicant: Aimee Harinoro; Applicant: All occupiers of 238 Cornelis Street, Fairland, Johannesburg (also known as Erf Q92, Fairland, Johannesburg); Respondent: LG Maroncowitz and Sons (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Municipality
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 2 May 2018
- Case Number
- 2879/17
- Procedural Posture
- Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Eviction Order
- Outcome
- Application for rescission granted; eviction order and writ of ejectment set aside; applicants permitted to file opposing affidavit; first respondent ordered to pay costs.
- Judges
- N.M Mavundla
- Legal Topics
- Rescission of Judgment, Eviction Proceedings, Irregular Service, Wilful Default, Bona Fide Defence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Aimee Harinoro
Applicant
All occupiers of 238 Cornelis Street, Fairland, Johannesburg (also known as Erf Q92, Fairland, Johannesburg)
Applicant
LG Maroncowitz and Sons (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
City of Johannesburg Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Eviction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the eviction order granted on 10 March 2017 was erroneously sought and granted.
- 2 Whether the notice of set down was irregularly served and prematurely sought.
- 3 Whether the applicants were in wilful default in failing to file their notice to oppose and opposing affidavit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the eviction order was erroneously sought and granted because the notice of set down was irregularly served at the premises rather than at the attorneys' address, and was applied for prematurely. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default, as the main applicant was out of the country and acted promptly upon learning of the proceedings. The applicants also raised a bona fide defence based on their purchase agreement, which had not been cancelled. The procedural irregularities and the existence of a bona fide defence justified rescission of the eviction order.
Court Disposition
Application for rescission granted; eviction order and writ of ejectment set aside; applicants permitted to file opposing affidavit; first respondent ordered to pay costs.
Orders
- The order granted on 10 March 2017 is rescinded and set aside.
- The writ of ejectment issued in consequence of the aforesaid order is declared to be of no force and effect and is set aside.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment