Mcunu v Malatji (7742/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 195 (9 October 2012)

Mcunu v Malatji (7742/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 195 (9 October 2012)

The court found that the applicant lawfully acquired ownership of the property through a sale in execution following foreclosure, and the property is registered in his name. The respondent's occupation is unlawful, as she refused both to vacate and to enter into a lease agreement, and failed to pay rent or utilities. The respondent's preliminary point regarding a pending application was dismissed as the other case was instituted after the present proceedings and did not bar the eviction. The alleged non-compliance with the PIE Act was unsupported by evidence. The respondent failed to present any personal circumstances or legal defences that would justify refusal of the eviction order. The...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 195
Parties
Applicant: Menzi Kwame Nkrumah Mcunu; Respondent: Anna Malatji
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 October 2012
Case Number
7742/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Eviction Application
Outcome
Eviction application granted; respondent and all persons occupying through her ordered to vacate the property. Costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
N F Kgomo
Legal Topics
Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Sale in Execution
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Unlawful Occupation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Sale in Execution

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Menzi Kwame Nkrumah Mcunu

Applicant

Anna Malatji

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Eviction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent and those occupying through her are unlawfully occupying the property and should be evicted.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant complied with the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).
  3. 3 Whether the existence of another pending application justifies suspension or dismissal of the present eviction proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant lawfully acquired ownership of the property through a sale in execution following foreclosure, and the property is registered in his name. The respondent's occupation is unlawful, as she refused both to vacate and to enter into a lease agreement, and failed to pay rent or utilities. The respondent's preliminary point regarding a pending application was dismissed as the other case was instituted after the present proceedings and did not bar the eviction. The alleged non-compliance with the PIE Act was unsupported by evidence. The respondent failed to present any personal circumstances or legal defences that would justify refusal of the eviction order. The...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; respondent and all persons occupying through her ordered to vacate the property. Costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons occupying the property through her are to vacate Erf 254 Moletsane Township, also known as 254 Mokhatla Street, Moletsane, on 30 August 2012.
  • The sheriff is authorised to evict the respondent and all persons occupying through her if they fail to vacate by 31 August 2012. The applicant is entitled to recover eviction costs from the respondent.