Kemp v Kohlile (1778/2008) [2009] ZAECHC 18 (26 February 2009)

Kemp v Kohlile (1778/2008) [2009] ZAECHC 18 (26 February 2009)

The court found that the respondent's denial of occupation was credible and not contradicted by any evidence. The applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was the occupier of the property. The respondent's involvement in assisting her family did not amount to occupation for the purposes of the PIE Act. Furthermore, the applicant had not cited or given statutory notice to the respondent's parents, children, and grandchild, who were the actual occupiers. As a result, the requirements for eviction under section 4 of the PIE Act were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed.

Citation
[2009] ZAECHC 18
Parties
Applicant: Paul Kemp; Respondent: Cynthia Phumela Kohlile
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2009
Case Number
1778/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Jones
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Notice Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Notice Requirements

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

Paul Kemp

Applicant

Cynthia Phumela Kohlile

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in occupation of the property for purposes of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established grounds for eviction under section 4 of the Act.
  3. 3 Whether persons residing at the property with the respondent can be evicted without being cited and given statutory notice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's denial of occupation was credible and not contradicted by any evidence. The applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was the occupier of the property. The respondent's involvement in assisting her family did not amount to occupation for the purposes of the PIE Act. Furthermore, the applicant had not cited or given statutory notice to the respondent's parents, children, and grandchild, who were the actual occupiers. As a result, the requirements for eviction under section 4 of the PIE Act were not satisfied, and the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.