Mailula v Mashele and Others (4453/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 432 (13 November 2008)

Mailula v Mashele and Others (4453/08) [2008] ZAGPHC 432 (13 November 2008)

The court found that both parties would suffer prejudice regardless of the outcome, but the balance of hardship favored the applicant. The applicant faces grave financial consequences, including risk of foreclosure and loss of substantial sums, if the majority of respondents remain in occupation. The respondents are not indigent and have not tendered to restore the purchase price paid by the applicant. The tender to pay rental was insufficient to address the applicant's principal concern, which is the ability to develop the property and service the debt. The court emphasized the broader implications for urban renewal and the city's interests if the applicant is not assisted. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 432
Parties
Applicant: Marofane William Mailula; Respondent: Andrew Mashele and 67 Others
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 November 2008
Case Number
4453/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for leave to execute granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the application dated 11 November 2008.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Leave to Execute Pending Appeal, Eviction, Balance of Hardship, Mortgage Foreclosure, Arrear Utilities
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Execute Pending Appeal Eviction Balance of Hardship Mortgage Foreclosure Arrear Utilities

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marofane William Mailula

Applicant

Andrew Mashele and 67 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Execute Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to execute the eviction order should be granted pending the outcome of the appeal.
  2. 2 What is the just and equitable balance between the interests of the owner and the occupiers.
  3. 3 Whether the tender by the unlawful occupiers to pay rental pending appeal is sufficient to prevent eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties would suffer prejudice regardless of the outcome, but the balance of hardship favored the applicant. The applicant faces grave financial consequences, including risk of foreclosure and loss of substantial sums, if the majority of respondents remain in occupation. The respondents are not indigent and have not tendered to restore the purchase price paid by the applicant. The tender to pay rental was insufficient to address the applicant's principal concern, which is the ability to develop the property and service the debt. The court emphasized the broader implications for urban renewal and the city's interests if the applicant is not assisted. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to execute granted in terms of prayers 1 and 2 of the application dated 11 November 2008.

Orders

  • Leave to execute the eviction order is granted against all respondents except Tulane Mthembu, Elizabeth Dladla, Andrew Mashele, Dennis Sifiso Khoza, and Petrus Joseph Chauke, who may remain pending appeal.
  • The remaining respondents are ordered to vacate the property.