JB Marks Local Municipality v Illegal Trespassers Erf 2148,Promosa,Potchefstroom (M353/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 1 (18 January 2023)

JB Marks Local Municipality v Illegal Trespassers Erf 2148,Promosa,Potchefstroom (M353/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 1 (18 January 2023)

The court found that the Municipality failed to facilitate any meaningful engagement with the respondents prior to seeking eviction, as required by both the Constitution and the PIE Act. The respondents demonstrated that they had occupied the land for more than six months, were indigent, and would be rendered homeless if evicted without alternative accommodation. The Municipality did not provide evidence of alternative accommodation or engage with the respondents regarding their circumstances. Granting an eviction order under these circumstances would be unjust and inequitable, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 1
Parties
Applicant: JB Marks Local Municipality; Respondent: The Illegal Trespassers onto and/or Attemptive / Prospective/ Actual Occupiers of: Erf 2148, Promosa, Potchefstroom; The Remaining Portion of Erf 2150, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Erf 2149, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Erf 2150, Promosa, Potchefstroom; The Remaining Portion of Erf 1201, Allan Hendrikse Road, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Remaining Extent of Portion 448 of the Farm Town; and Townlands 435 IQ, Potchefstroom
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 January 2023
Case Number
M353/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Morgan AJ
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Section 26 Right to Housing, Meaningful Engagement, Municipal Obligations, Homelessness, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Section 26 Right to Housing Meaningful Engagement Municipal Obligations Homelessness +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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JB Marks Local Municipality

Applicant

The Illegal Trespassers onto and/or Attemptive / Prospective/ Actual Occupiers of: Erf 2148, Promosa, Potchefstroom; The Remaining Portion of Erf 2150, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Erf 2149, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Erf 2150, Promosa, Potchefstroom; The Remaining Portion of Erf 1201, Allan Hendrikse Road, Promosa, Potchefstroom; Remaining Extent of Portion 448 of the Farm Town; and Townlands 435 IQ, Potchefstroom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Municipality complied with the requirement of meaningful engagement prior to seeking eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction would render the respondents homeless and if alternative accommodation was provided.
  3. 3 Whether the Municipality's application for eviction meets the requirements of the PIE Act and section 26(3) of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Municipality failed to facilitate any meaningful engagement with the respondents prior to seeking eviction, as required by both the Constitution and the PIE Act. The respondents demonstrated that they had occupied the land for more than six months, were indigent, and would be rendered homeless if evicted without alternative accommodation. The Municipality did not provide evidence of alternative accommodation or engage with the respondents regarding their circumstances. Granting an eviction order under these circumstances would be unjust and inequitable, contrary to constitutional and statutory requirements. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed with costs.