Metropolitan Evangelical Services NPC and Another v Goge (A5039/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 483; 2018 (6) SA 564 (GJ) (5 September 2018)

Metropolitan Evangelical Services NPC and Another v Goge (A5039/17) [2018] ZAGPJHC 483; 2018 (6) SA 564 (GJ) (5 September 2018)

The respondent did not abandon or waive his right to occupy the room at Ekuthuleni. He left his belongings, retained the keys, and intended to return, which he did. The appellants failed to establish that the respondent expressly or by conduct waived his rights. The respondent was in occupation when denied access, and the appellants' conduct in barring him without a court order or his consent was unlawful. Section 26(3) of the Constitution and the PIE Act apply to homeless shelters, and the respondent's exclusion constituted an unlawful eviction and spoliation. The appropriate remedy was restoration of possession to the respondent, and the appeal against the order for re-admission was...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 483
Parties
Appellant: Metropolitan Evangelical Services NPC; Appellant: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Hloniphokwake Goge
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2018
Case Number
A5039/17
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon employment of two counsel.
Judges
Mashile, P Coppin, E J Francis
Legal Topics
Section 26 3 Eviction, Mandament Van Spolie, Homeless Shelters, Unlawful Eviction, Self Help, Pie Act Application
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Section 26 3 Eviction Mandament Van Spolie Homeless Shelters Unlawful Eviction Self Help +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Metropolitan Evangelical Services NPC

Appellant

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Appellant

Hloniphokwake Goge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Judgment and Order of Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants lawfully barred the respondent from his room at Ekuthuleni shelter.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was unlawfully evicted without a court order, in contravention of section 26(3) of the Constitution.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent had abandoned or waived his right to occupy the room.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent did not abandon or waive his right to occupy the room at Ekuthuleni. He left his belongings, retained the keys, and intended to return, which he did. The appellants failed to establish that the respondent expressly or by conduct waived his rights. The respondent was in occupation when denied access, and the appellants' conduct in barring him without a court order or his consent was unlawful. Section 26(3) of the Constitution and the PIE Act apply to homeless shelters, and the respondent's exclusion constituted an unlawful eviction and spoliation. The appropriate remedy was restoration of possession to the respondent, and the appeal against the order for re-admission was...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs consequent upon employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those consequent upon the employment of two counsel.