Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd v May and Others (94285/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 918 (25 October 2016)

Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd v May and Others (94285/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 918 (25 October 2016)

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the respondents are in unlawful occupation, having refused to vacate after transfer. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act. The respondents failed to disclose any relevant circumstances, apart from their ages, that would justify refusal or stay of eviction. The pending High Court proceedings regarding transfer of ownership were considered, but the court was not persuaded that the respondents had prospects of success or that a stay was warranted. The respondents' ages did not qualify them as elderly under the PIE Act. Accordingly, the court held that it was just and...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 918
Parties
Applicant: Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Barcy Mlungisi May; Respondent: Delphine Nyameka May; Respondent: All Occupiers of Erf [...], Yeoville; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 October 2016
Case Number
94285/2015
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondents; costs awarded against the first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
AC Basson
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Sale of Property, Stay of Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Sale of Property Stay of Eviction

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Barcy Mlungisi May

Respondent

Delphine Nyameka May

Respondent

All Occupiers of Erf [...], Yeoville

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the respondents under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have disclosed any relevant circumstances justifying refusal or stay of eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements of the PIE Act have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the respondents are in unlawful occupation, having refused to vacate after transfer. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act. The respondents failed to disclose any relevant circumstances, apart from their ages, that would justify refusal or stay of eviction. The pending High Court proceedings regarding transfer of ownership were considered, but the court was not persuaded that the respondents had prospects of success or that a stay was warranted. The respondents' ages did not qualify them as elderly under the PIE Act. Accordingly, the court held that it was just and...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondents; costs awarded against the first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents and all persons occupying through them are evicted from the property situated at Erf [...], Yeoville, Johannesburg within 14 days from service of this order, failing which the Sheriff is authorized to evict them.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered to pay the costs of this application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.