Matsepe and Another v Lungisa and Others (3466/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 31 (27 May 2014)

Matsepe and Another v Lungisa and Others (3466/2013) [2014] ZAECPEHC 31 (27 May 2014)

The court found that the first respondent breached several material terms of the second agreement, including failure to pay the full deposit, secure the balance of the purchase price, and pay occupational interest. Although the initial letters of demand were not properly delivered, the final letter was served at the chosen domicilium and provided the required seven-day period to remedy the breaches. The respondent failed to comply, entitling the applicants to cancel the agreement. The cancellation was effective, and the respondents' right of occupation terminated. The requirements of section 4 of PIE were met, and no opposing papers were filed. The applicants established that the...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Tsiu Vincent Matsepe NO; Applicant: Shirishkumar Jivan Kalianjee; Applicant: Ottlie Anton Noordman; Respondent: Andile Weah Lungisa; Respondent: All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Erf [.], also known as [….]; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 May 2014
Case Number
3466/2013
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
J W Eksteen
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Contract Cancellation, Occupational Interest
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Contract Cancellation Occupational Interest

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tsiu Vincent Matsepe NO

Applicant

Shirishkumar Jivan Kalianjee

Applicant

Ottlie Anton Noordman

Applicant

Andile Weah Lungisa

Respondent

All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Erf [.], also known as [….]

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second agreement for sale of the property was validly cancelled.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have any legal right to occupy the property after cancellation.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent breached several material terms of the second agreement, including failure to pay the full deposit, secure the balance of the purchase price, and pay occupational interest. Although the initial letters of demand were not properly delivered, the final letter was served at the chosen domicilium and provided the required seven-day period to remedy the breaches. The respondent failed to comply, entitling the applicants to cancel the agreement. The cancellation was effective, and the respondents' right of occupation terminated. The requirements of section 4 of PIE were met, and no opposing papers were filed. The applicants established that the...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ordered to vacate the property within thirty days of the date of the order.
  • If the respondents fail to comply, the Sheriff is authorised to evict them and may obtain assistance from the South African Police Services.