Khoete v Dimbaza (A448/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 129 (12 November 2009)

Khoete v Dimbaza (A448/07) [2009] ZAFSHC 129 (12 November 2009)

The court found that the applicant was the 'person in charge' of the property at the time of the application, having entered into a valid Deed of Sale with the North-West Housing Corporation, which had authority over the property following legislative and constitutional changes. The respondent's occupation was unlawful, as he lacked consent from either the owner or the person in charge, and any prior rights held by Mr. Tshikare had been validly cancelled. The court held that the Magistrate correctly admitted the documentary exhibits and that all procedural requirements under PIE were satisfied. Given the respondent's ability to secure alternative accommodation and the absence of contrary...

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 129
Parties
Appellant: Khoete Churchill Khoete; Respondent: Judith Nomathemba Dimbaza
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2009
Case Number
A448/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order Granted by Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; eviction order confirmed with varied date for vacating property.
Judges
Van Zyl, Mocumie
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khoete Churchill Khoete

Appellant

Judith Nomathemba Dimbaza

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order Granted by Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant had locus standi as 'owner' or 'person in charge' under PIE to seek eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's occupation of the property was unlawful under PIE.
  3. 3 Whether the Magistrate correctly admitted certain documentary exhibits into evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was the 'person in charge' of the property at the time of the application, having entered into a valid Deed of Sale with the North-West Housing Corporation, which had authority over the property following legislative and constitutional changes. The respondent's occupation was unlawful, as he lacked consent from either the owner or the person in charge, and any prior rights held by Mr. Tshikare had been validly cancelled. The court held that the Magistrate correctly admitted the documentary exhibits and that all procedural requirements under PIE were satisfied. Given the respondent's ability to secure alternative accommodation and the absence of contrary...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; eviction order confirmed with varied date for vacating property.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed, with costs.
  • The order of the Magistrate's Court is varied: Khoete Churchill Khoete and all other persons in possession of the property situated at 1849 Unit 1, Selosesha, who hold possession through or under Khoete Churchill Khoete are ordered to vacate the said property by not later than Friday, 8 January 2010.