Mihloti and Another v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department and Another (22/5396) [2022] ZAGPJHC 386 (10 June 2022)

Mihloti and Another v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department and Another (22/5396) [2022] ZAGPJHC 386 (10 June 2022)

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to occupy the property, which is owned by the City of Ekurhuleni. Their application for an interdict preventing eviction without a court order could not succeed, as they were not in occupation and had conceded they had no right to occupy. The damages claim was not properly brought, as damages must be claimed in action proceedings. No case was made out for restoration or for the provision of alternative accommodation. The relief sought regarding pending appeal proceedings was governed by section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants' papers were defective, failing to identify the property and the right entitling them to...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 386
Parties
Applicant: Mihloti, Rose Milani; Applicant: Vuyisile, Ndinisa Hackly; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department; Respondent: City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2022
Case Number
22/5396
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, jointly and severally.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Interdict, Leave to Appeal, Damages Claim, Urgent Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Interdict Leave to Appeal Damages Claim Urgent Application

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mihloti, Rose Milani

Applicant

Vuyisile, Ndinisa Hackly

Applicant

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Police Department

Respondent

City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Dismissal of Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict preventing eviction without a court order.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a prima facie right to occupy the property.
  3. 3 Whether damages can be claimed in motion proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish a prima facie right to occupy the property, which is owned by the City of Ekurhuleni. Their application for an interdict preventing eviction without a court order could not succeed, as they were not in occupation and had conceded they had no right to occupy. The damages claim was not properly brought, as damages must be claimed in action proceedings. No case was made out for restoration or for the provision of alternative accommodation. The relief sought regarding pending appeal proceedings was governed by section 18 of the Superior Courts Act. The applicants' papers were defective, failing to identify the property and the right entitling them to...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.