Mabaso and Others v Manyathela and Another (20794/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 498 (30 September 2021)

Mabaso and Others v Manyathela and Another (20794/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 498 (30 September 2021)

The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of a valid customary marriage with the deceased, as there was no proof of family negotiations, lobola, or registration of the marriage. The letter from the Department of Home Affairs was not supported by affidavit and did not confirm registration. Consequently, the respondent could not claim a right to occupy the property based on marriage. The applicants proved ownership and unlawful occupation. The respondent's claim of homelessness was rejected, as she owns another property. The requirements for eviction under the PIE Act were satisfied, and it was just and equitable to grant the eviction order.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 498
Parties
Applicant: Jacob Jabu Mabaso; Applicant: Basimane Edwin Mabaso; Applicant: Ntswaki Johanna Aphana; Respondent: Kedibone Esther Manyathela; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2021
Case Number
20794/2020
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons occupying through and under her. Costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Customary Marriage, Eviction Under Pie Act, Unlawful Occupation, Intestate Succession
Land and Property Civil Procedure Customary Marriage Eviction Under Pie Act Unlawful Occupation Intestate Succession

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacob Jabu Mabaso

Applicant

Basimane Edwin Mabaso

Applicant

Ntswaki Johanna Aphana

Applicant

Kedibone Esther Manyathela

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent and those occupying through her are in lawful occupation of the property.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under the PIE Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was married to the deceased in terms of customary law and thus entitled to occupy the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence of a valid customary marriage with the deceased, as there was no proof of family negotiations, lobola, or registration of the marriage. The letter from the Department of Home Affairs was not supported by affidavit and did not confirm registration. Consequently, the respondent could not claim a right to occupy the property based on marriage. The applicants proved ownership and unlawful occupation. The respondent's claim of homelessness was rejected, as she owns another property. The requirements for eviction under the PIE Act were satisfied, and it was just and equitable to grant the eviction order.

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons occupying through and under her. Costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all persons occupying through and under her must vacate the property within 14 days of the order.
  • The eviction may be carried out by the Sheriff or his deputy with assistance from the South African Police Services or a private security company if necessary.