Mngomezulu and Others v City Council of Soweto (223/87) [1988] ZASCA 163 (30 November 1988)

Mngomezulu and Others v City Council of Soweto (223/87) [1988] ZASCA 163 (30 November 1988)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dwellings occupied by the appellants were approved dwellings constructed under the Housing Acts, and that the rental for such dwellings must be determined by the Administrator on the recommendation of the Commission as required by section 61(b)(ii) of the Housing Act, 1966. The rentals charged to the appellants were not lawfully fixed in accordance with these statutory provisions. Consequently, the amounts claimed as rental did not constitute 'rental payable' under section 65, and the respondent was not entitled to rely on section 65(b) to eject the appellants. The purported ejectment was therefore unlawful.

Citation
[1988] ZASCA 163
Parties
Appellant: Themba Michael Mngomezulu; Appellant: Isaac Mzondeki Radebe; Appellant: Mxololisi Alfred Mphungwa; Respondent: City Council of Soweto
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1988
Case Number
223/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Appeal upheld; ejectment declared unlawful; costs awarded to appellants.
Judges
Corbett, Hoexter, Grosskopf, Smalberger, Vivier
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Approved Dwellings, Rental Determination, Unlawful Ejectment
Land and Property Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Approved Dwellings Rental Determination Unlawful Ejectment

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Themba Michael Mngomezulu

Appellant

Isaac Mzondeki Radebe

Appellant

Mxololisi Alfred Mphungwa

Appellant

City Council of Soweto

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Witwatersrand Local Division; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to eject the appellants from their dwellings under section 65 of the Housing Act, 1966.
  2. 2 Whether the rentals charged constituted 'rental payable' as contemplated by section 65.
  3. 3 Whether the rental for the dwellings was lawfully determined in accordance with the prescribed statutory provisions.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the dwellings occupied by the appellants were approved dwellings constructed under the Housing Acts, and that the rental for such dwellings must be determined by the Administrator on the recommendation of the Commission as required by section 61(b)(ii) of the Housing Act, 1966. The rentals charged to the appellants were not lawfully fixed in accordance with these statutory provisions. Consequently, the amounts claimed as rental did not constitute 'rental payable' under section 65, and the respondent was not entitled to rely on section 65(b) to eject the appellants. The purported ejectment was therefore unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; ejectment declared unlawful; costs awarded to appellants.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent was not entitled to eject the applicants from their respective dwellings on 26 August 1986 pursuant to section 65 of the Housing Act 4 of 1966.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicants' costs, including the costs of two counsel.