Juskei v Ntshingila (A5069/2021 ; 2019/31410) [2023] ZAGPJHC 681 (12 June 2023)

Juskei v Ntshingila (A5069/2021 ; 2019/31410) [2023] ZAGPJHC 681 (12 June 2023)

The appeal succeeded because the urgent court order was granted without proper service on the appellant, violating his right to be heard. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of PIE, which mandates procedural fairness and adequate notice before eviction. The court found that the rights of the appellant, his wife, and children to adequate housing, human dignity, and due process were disregarded. The respondent did not make out a substantive case for urgency or justify the eviction, and the process adopted by the court a quo was arbitrary and unlawful. The eviction order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the respondent due to the egregious violation of rights...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 681
Parties
Appellant: Brendan Wentzel Juksei; Respondent: Deseree Jozini Ntshingila
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2023
Case Number
A5069/2021 ; 2019/31410
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Urgent Court Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; urgent court order set aside; costs awarded against respondent.
Judges
Crutchfield, Windell, Fisher
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Audi Alteram Partem, Procedural Fairness, Adequate Housing Rights, Urgent Application Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Eviction Proceedings Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Audi Alteram Partem Procedural Fairness Adequate Housing Rights +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brendan Wentzel Juksei

Appellant

Deseree Jozini Ntshingila

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Urgent Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the urgent court order for eviction was granted in the absence of proper service and in violation of procedural rights.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to evict the appellant and his family without complying with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether the rights to adequate housing, human dignity, and procedural fairness under the Constitution and PIE were disregarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the urgent court order was granted without proper service on the appellant, violating his right to be heard. The respondent failed to comply with the requirements of PIE, which mandates procedural fairness and adequate notice before eviction. The court found that the rights of the appellant, his wife, and children to adequate housing, human dignity, and due process were disregarded. The respondent did not make out a substantive case for urgency or justify the eviction, and the process adopted by the court a quo was arbitrary and unlawful. The eviction order was set aside, and costs were awarded against the respondent due to the egregious violation of rights...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; urgent court order set aside; costs awarded against respondent.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal.
  • The order of the urgent court granted on 10 September 2019 under case number 2019/31410 is set aside.