Hendricks and Another v Darmane Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (A362/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 137 (30 August 2019)

Hendricks and Another v Darmane Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (A362/2018) [2019] ZAWCHC 137 (30 August 2019)

The court found that the appellants' occupation of the cottage was pursuant to a precarium granted for an indefinite period, and that the first respondent failed to provide reasonable notice of termination. The only letter that could be construed as notice was dated 4 April 2017, giving the appellants just over three weeks to vacate, which was held to be unreasonable given the appellants' long-term residence, family circumstances, and lack of pressing need for the property by the respondent. The constitutional rights to dignity and housing further required a just and equitable approach. The respondent's earlier letters denied any right of occupation and did not constitute valid notice....

Citation
[2019] ZAWCHC 137
Parties
Appellant: Armien Hendricks; Appellant: Porta Hendricks; Respondent: Darmane Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Stellenbosch Municipality
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Case Number
A362/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Order for Eviction Under PIE
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Bozalek, Wille, Samela
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Precarium Termination, Notice Period Reasonableness, Right to Housing, Just and Equitable Eviction, Constitutional Rights of Occupiers
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Precarium Termination Notice Period Reasonableness Right to Housing Just and Equitable Eviction +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Armien Hendricks

Appellant

Porta Hendricks

Appellant

Darmane Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Stellenbosch Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Order for Eviction Under PIE

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants' rights of occupation were lawfully terminated.
  2. 2 Whether the notice period given for termination of occupation was reasonable under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order was just and equitable, considering constitutional rights and the absence of emergency accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants' occupation of the cottage was pursuant to a precarium granted for an indefinite period, and that the first respondent failed to provide reasonable notice of termination. The only letter that could be construed as notice was dated 4 April 2017, giving the appellants just over three weeks to vacate, which was held to be unreasonable given the appellants' long-term residence, family circumstances, and lack of pressing need for the property by the respondent. The constitutional rights to dignity and housing further required a just and equitable approach. The respondent's earlier letters denied any right of occupation and did not constitute valid notice....

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld, with no order as to costs.
  • Paragraphs 1 - 5 and 7 - 8 of the orders granted by the court a quo on 23 April 2018 are set aside.