Madulammoho Housing Association (Pty) Ltd v Thabane and Others (272/2017; 1077/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 680 (21 November 2018)

Madulammoho Housing Association (Pty) Ltd v Thabane and Others (272/2017; 1077/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 680 (21 November 2018)

The court found that the respondents are in unlawful occupation of the property, not because the applicant is the owner, but because the applicant has the right to possess and the lease agreements were properly cancelled. The respondents failed to provide sufficient information regarding their personal circumstances...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 680
Parties
Applicant: Madulammoho Housing Association (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mirriam Poppy Thabane; Respondent: Nonhlanhla Pretty Mkhize; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Case Number
272/2017; 1077/2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted but held in abeyance pending further information on the respondents' personal circumstances and risk of homelessness.
Judges
E Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Social Housing Scheme, Just and Equitable Eviction, Section 26 Constitution, Ownership Dispute, Homelessness Consideration
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Social Housing Scheme Just and Equitable Eviction Section 26 Constitution Ownership Dispute +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madulammoho Housing Association (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mirriam Poppy Thabane

Respondent

Nonhlanhla Pretty Mkhize

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the respondents from the property despite the respondents' challenge to ownership.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction would be just and equitable under section 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether the respondents would be rendered homeless by the eviction and whether alternative accommodation is available.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents are in unlawful occupation of the property, not because the applicant is the owner, but because the applicant has the right to possess and the lease agreements were properly cancelled. The respondents failed to provide sufficient information regarding their personal circumstances or the risk of homelessness, despite being legally represented and advised of their obligations under section 26 of the Constitution and PIE. The City of Johannesburg's report did not address the impact of eviction or alternative accommodation. The court held that eviction is warranted but must be held in abeyance until all relevant information concerning the respondents'...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted but held in abeyance pending further information on the respondents' personal circumstances and risk of homelessness.

Orders

  • Ms Mkhize and Ms Thabane, and all those who occupy the units through and under them, are evicted from Jubulani Matjhabeng Soweto.
  • The eviction order is held in abeyance pending all relevant information being placed before the court.