Hark v Morolo and Others (47312/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 999 (6 September 2017)

Hark v Morolo and Others (47312/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 999 (6 September 2017)

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The applicant had complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including proper service of the termination notice and withdrawal of the Magistrate's Court proceedings. The respondents' allegations of an oral agreement and procedural irregularities were unsupported and did not amount to a genuine dispute of fact. The eviction order was just and equitable, as the respondents had no valid defence and continued unlawful occupation. The municipality's lack of opposition and absence of a report did not affect the applicant's entitlement to relief. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 999
Parties
Applicant: Terry Richard Hark; Respondent: Cyril Oreng Morolo; Respondent: Wilheminah Morolo; Respondent: City of Tshwane Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2017
Case Number
47312/2016
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Eviction Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
MB Mahalelo
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Proceedings, Procedural Irregularity, Just and Equitable Principle
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Proceedings Procedural Irregularity Just and Equitable Principle

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terry Richard Hark

Applicant

Cyril Oreng Morolo

Respondent

Wilheminah Morolo

Respondent

City of Tshwane Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in granting the eviction order under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether procedural irregularities in the Magistrate's Court justified leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant complied with procedural requirements for eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the grounds for leave to appeal were without merit. The applicant had complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including proper service of the termination notice and withdrawal of the Magistrate's Court proceedings. The respondents' allegations of an oral agreement and procedural irregularities were unsupported and did not amount to a genuine dispute of fact. The eviction order was just and equitable, as the respondents had no valid defence and continued unlawful occupation. The municipality's lack of opposition and absence of a report did not affect the applicant's entitlement to relief. Accordingly, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The eviction order granted on 19 May 2017 stands.