Matshaya v Mapatha and Others (50451/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 64 (1 February 2023)

Matshaya v Mapatha and Others (50451/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 64 (1 February 2023)

The court found that the second respondent's defence, based on her alleged marriage in community of property to the first respondent, creates a genuine dispute of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers. The resolution of whether such a marriage exists is material to determining the applicant's locus standi and entitlement to an eviction order. As the dispute is genuine and material, the application cannot be decided without oral evidence. The court postponed the matter for oral evidence on the issue of the alleged marriage, reserving costs for later determination.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Ndivhuwo Rose Matshaya; Respondent: Seboya William Mapatha; Respondent: Nthabiseng Maria Masita; Respondent: The Unknown Occupiers of Erf T [....] L [....] Gardens, Ext [....], Township, Registration Division J.R., Gauteng Province, 0025; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2023
Case Number
50451/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Referred to Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
CP Wesley
Legal Topics
Eviction, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Matrimonial Property Act, Locus Standi, Dispute of Fact
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Matrimonial Property Act Locus Standi Dispute of Fact

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ndivhuwo Rose Matshaya

Applicant

Seboya William Mapatha

Respondent

Nthabiseng Maria Masita

Respondent

The Unknown Occupiers of Erf T [....] L [....] Gardens, Ext [....], Township, Registration Division J.R., Gauteng Province, 0025

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Referred to Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent was married to the first respondent in community of property, affecting the validity of the sale and transfer.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had locus standi to bring the eviction application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent's defence, based on her alleged marriage in community of property to the first respondent, creates a genuine dispute of fact that cannot be resolved on the papers. The resolution of whether such a marriage exists is material to determining the applicant's locus standi and entitlement to an eviction order. As the dispute is genuine and material, the application cannot be decided without oral evidence. The court postponed the matter for oral evidence on the issue of the alleged marriage, reserving costs for later determination.

Court Disposition

Application postponed for oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The application is postponed to a date to be determined by the Registrar for the hearing of oral evidence on whether the second respondent was married to the first respondent in community of property.
  • Oral evidence may be led by any person who has already deposed to an affidavit concerning the merits of the application.