Maboe v Zion Christian Church (Appeal) (HCA30/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 98 (15 May 2025)

Maboe v Zion Christian Church (Appeal) (HCA30/2024) [2025] ZALMPPHC 98 (15 May 2025)

The court found that the PIE Act does not apply to the present matter because the property in question is not used for residential purposes but for business purposes, specifically the construction of a lodge. The appellant resides elsewhere and does not use the property as a dwelling. Therefore, the eviction falls under common law principles, not the PIE Act. The respondent, although not the registered owner, holds a valid permission to occupy issued by the Municipality and is the person in charge of the property, granting it locus standi to bring the application. The appellant failed to provide proof of title or permission to occupy, relying only on a confirmatory affidavit without...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 98
Parties
Appellant: Rachidi Maboe; Respondent: Zion Christian Church
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 2025
Case Number
HCA30/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment and Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Naude-Odendaal, Nkoana
Legal Topics
Eviction, Locus Standi, Permission to Occupy, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Common Law Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Locus Standi Permission to Occupy Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Common Law Eviction

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rachidi Maboe

Appellant

Zion Christian Church

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment and Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act) applies to the eviction application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had locus standi to bring the eviction application.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural and administrative requirements of the PIE Act were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the PIE Act does not apply to the present matter because the property in question is not used for residential purposes but for business purposes, specifically the construction of a lodge. The appellant resides elsewhere and does not use the property as a dwelling. Therefore, the eviction falls under common law principles, not the PIE Act. The respondent, although not the registered owner, holds a valid permission to occupy issued by the Municipality and is the person in charge of the property, granting it locus standi to bring the application. The appellant failed to provide proof of title or permission to occupy, relying only on a confirmatory affidavit without...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.