Lundy and Another v Nkomo and Others (19998/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 11 (10 February 2012)

Lundy and Another v Nkomo and Others (19998/2011) [2012] ZAGPJHC 11 (10 February 2012)

The applicants, as lawful owners, have complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act and are entitled to an eviction order. The first respondent's claim to ownership is unfounded, and her personal circumstances do not constitute a valid defence against eviction. The court considered the interests of the occupiers, including minor children, but found no evidence of destitution or efforts to secure alternative accommodation. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of merit and sufficient time afforded to the respondent. It is just and equitable for the respondents to be evicted, with a reasonable period of 30 days granted to vacate the property. Costs follow...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 11
Parties
Applicant: Shaun Ryan Lundy; Applicant: Deneys Leon Nieuwoudt; Respondent: Nomhlwazi Geneth Nkomo; Respondent: The Illegal Occupiers of Portion 3 of Holding 177 President Park Agricultural Holdings; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 February 2012
Case Number
19998/2011
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate within 30 days; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
D S S Moshidi
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Relief
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Relief

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shaun Ryan Lundy

Applicant

Deneys Leon Nieuwoudt

Applicant

Nomhlwazi Geneth Nkomo

Respondent

The Illegal Occupiers of Portion 3 of Holding 177 President Park Agricultural Holdings

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an eviction order against the first and second respondents under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent has a valid defence to resist eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction is just and equitable considering the circumstances of the occupiers.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants, as lawful owners, have complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act and are entitled to an eviction order. The first respondent's claim to ownership is unfounded, and her personal circumstances do not constitute a valid defence against eviction. The court considered the interests of the occupiers, including minor children, but found no evidence of destitution or efforts to secure alternative accommodation. The application for postponement was refused due to lack of merit and sufficient time afforded to the respondent. It is just and equitable for the respondents to be evicted, with a reasonable period of 30 days granted to vacate the property. Costs follow...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate within 30 days; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered to vacate Portion 3 of Holding 177, President Park Agricultural Holdings, at Plot No. 3, 177 Kruger Road, President Park, Midrand, Johannesburg, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
  • Should the respondents fail or refuse to vacate, the sheriff of the court, with the assistance of the South African Police Service if necessary, is authorised to evict them forthwith.