Joubert v Mkebe and Others (69522/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 28 (6 February 2013)

Joubert v Mkebe and Others (69522/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 28 (6 February 2013)

The court found that the respondents had not filed a substantive application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, but had merely sent a letter requesting an extension of time, which does not comply with the rules of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there was no pending appeal and the summary judgment was not suspended. The applicant had locus standi and complied with the requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. The respondents had no valid defence to resist eviction, and their conduct indicated deliberate delay and obstruction of the legal process. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 28
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Petrus Joubert; Respondent: Siphilo Samuel Mkebe; Respondent: Nokuhle Mildred Mkebe; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2013
Case Number
69522/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Following Sale in Execution; Opposition Based on Alleged Pending Constitutional Court Appeal.
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents; costs awarded against them jointly and severally.
Judges
BAM AJ
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sale in Execution, Suspension of Judgment, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Sale in Execution Suspension of Judgment Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Petrus Joubert

Applicant

Siphilo Samuel Mkebe

Respondent

Nokuhle Mildred Mkebe

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Eviction Application Following Sale in Execution; Opposition Based on Alleged Pending Constitutional Court Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the summary judgment and subsequent sale in execution are suspended due to a purported pending Constitutional Court application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have a valid defence to resist eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has complied with statutory requirements for eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had not filed a substantive application for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court, but had merely sent a letter requesting an extension of time, which does not comply with the rules of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, there was no pending appeal and the summary judgment was not suspended. The applicant had locus standi and complied with the requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. The respondents had no valid defence to resist eviction, and their conduct indicated deliberate delay and obstruction of the legal process. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to an eviction order.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents and all persons holding occupation through them of the premises situated at 12 Gulfstream Boulevard, Centurion, being Erf 2798 Highveld Ext 47 Township, Registration Division J.R., Province of Gauteng, are to vacate the property on or before 25 February 2013.
  • In the event of the First and Second Respondents and those holding occupation under them failing to vacate the property on or before the above date, the Sheriff or his deputy is authorised to evict such persons from the property on the day following the date referred to above or thereafter.