Madulammoho v Nkosi and Another (2018/10660) [2019] ZAGPJHC 209 (28 June 2019)

Madulammoho v Nkosi and Another (2018/10660) [2019] ZAGPJHC 209 (28 June 2019)

The applicant established ownership of the property through Deeds Office records and proved the lease agreement with the first respondent was lawfully terminated. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence disputing ownership or demonstrating a right to remain. She did not substantiate claims of duress or entitlement to transfer, nor did she provide evidence of risk of homelessness. The respondent is employed and able to afford rental, and has had ample time to secure alternative accommodation. The court finds it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a reasonable period for the respondent to vacate. The applicant is entitled to costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 209
Parties
Applicant: Madulammoho Housing Association; Respondent: Mildred Nkosi; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 June 2019
Case Number
2018/10660
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion Court
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those claiming occupation through her; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
L.T. Modiba
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Just and Equitable Eviction, Ownership Dispute, Alternative Accommodation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Just and Equitable Eviction Ownership Dispute Alternative Accommodation

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Madulammoho Housing Association

Applicant

Mildred Nkosi

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is the lawful owner of the property and entitled to seek eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent occupies the property unlawfully.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established ownership of the property through Deeds Office records and proved the lease agreement with the first respondent was lawfully terminated. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence disputing ownership or demonstrating a right to remain. She did not substantiate claims of duress or entitlement to transfer, nor did she provide evidence of risk of homelessness. The respondent is employed and able to afford rental, and has had ample time to secure alternative accommodation. The court finds it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a reasonable period for the respondent to vacate. The applicant is entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those claiming occupation through her; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all those claiming occupation through and under her are evicted from the property.
  • The first respondent and all those claiming occupation through and under her are ordered to vacate the property on 30 July 2019.