Magaiza and Another v Manzana and Others (2022-18440) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 (16 October 2023)

Magaiza and Another v Manzana and Others (2022-18440) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 (16 October 2023)

The applicants are the lawful owners of the property and cancelled the lease due to non-payment of rent. The respondent admits to defaulting and has no valid defence to eviction. Her arguments regarding the applicants' alleged foreign status and Nedbank's joinder are unfounded. The respondent did not credibly establish that she or her son would be rendered homeless, as her affidavits do not support this claim and her previous rent indicates she can afford alternative accommodation. The requirements of section 4(6) of PIE are met, and it is just and equitable to grant the eviction. Postponement would be unfair to the applicants.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1239
Parties
Applicant: Charles Magaiza; Applicant: Juliana Ipaishe Magaiza; Respondent: Busisiwe Manzana; Respondent: All other occupiers of 30 Inyanga, 2 Simba Road, Sunninghill; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 October 2023
Case Number
2022-18440
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under Section 4(6) of PIE
Outcome
Eviction granted; application succeeds.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Eviction, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lease Cancellation, Standing, Joinder of Parties
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Lease Cancellation Standing Joinder of Parties

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

Parties

Charles Magaiza

Applicant

Juliana Ipaishe Magaiza

Applicant

Busisiwe Manzana

Respondent

All other occupiers of 30 Inyanga, 2 Simba Road, Sunninghill

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under Section 4(6) of PIE

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to evict the respondents under section 4(6) of PIE.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have legal standing to bring the eviction application.
  3. 3 Whether Nedbank, as bondholder, should have been joined.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are the lawful owners of the property and cancelled the lease due to non-payment of rent. The respondent admits to defaulting and has no valid defence to eviction. Her arguments regarding the applicants' alleged foreign status and Nedbank's joinder are unfounded. The respondent did not credibly establish that she or her son would be rendered homeless, as her affidavits do not support this claim and her previous rent indicates she can afford alternative accommodation. The requirements of section 4(6) of PIE are met, and it is just and equitable to grant the eviction. Postponement would be unfair to the applicants.

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; application succeeds.

Orders

  • The respondents and all unlawful occupiers are ordered to vacate the property at 30 Inyanga, 2 Simba Road, Sunninghill.
  • No postponement is granted.