Maake and Another v Mokase and Others (53814/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 682 (2 October 2015)

Maake and Another v Mokase and Others (53814/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 682 (2 October 2015)

The court found that the applicants are the lawful owners of the property and have satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements under the PIE Act for eviction. The respondents failed to raise any valid defence against eviction, and their continued occupation has caused severe prejudice to the applicants, including financial loss and inability to occupy their own property. The respondents' argument regarding the legality of the sale and transfer is not relevant to the eviction proceedings and must be pursued in a separate forum. The court determined that it is just and equitable to grant the eviction order and that the respondents' conduct warrants a punitive costs order on an...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 682
Parties
Applicant: Reginald Lebogang Maake; Applicant: Boniswa Ntebogeng Maake; Respondent: Morris Mokase; Respondent: Martina Lilly Mokase; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited; Respondent: Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 October 2015
Case Number
53814/2012
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; costs awarded on attorney and client scale against first and second respondents.
Judges
MALI AJ
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Order, Costs on Attorney and Client Scale
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Order Costs on Attorney and Client Scale

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 6 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Lebogang Maake

Applicant

Boniswa Ntebogeng Maake

Applicant

Morris Mokase

Respondent

Martina Lilly Mokase

Respondent

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in unlawful occupation of the property and must be evicted.
  2. 2 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements of the PIE Act have been satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order is justified against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants are the lawful owners of the property and have satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements under the PIE Act for eviction. The respondents failed to raise any valid defence against eviction, and their continued occupation has caused severe prejudice to the applicants, including financial loss and inability to occupy their own property. The respondents' argument regarding the legality of the sale and transfer is not relevant to the eviction proceedings and must be pursued in a separate forum. The court determined that it is just and equitable to grant the eviction order and that the respondents' conduct warrants a punitive costs order on an...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; costs awarded on attorney and client scale against first and second respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents, and all those living through or under them, are to be evicted from the premises at Erf […], Danville Extension 5, Pretoria, Gauteng, together with any movable property, on or before 26 October 2015.
  • Should the first and second respondents, and all those living through or under them, fail to vacate the premises by 26 October 2015, the sheriff is authorised to assist the applicants in evicting them from the premises.