Mofamadi and Another v Mokhuane and Others (032666-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 252 (12 March 2025)

Mofamadi and Another v Mokhuane and Others (032666-2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 252 (12 March 2025)

The applicants are the registered owners of the property and the respondents are unlawful occupiers, as they occupy without consent and have not raised any valid defence in these proceedings. However, the PIE Act requires the court to consider all relevant circumstances, including the availability of alternate accommodation, before granting an eviction order. The absence of a municipal report on alternate accommodation means the court cannot properly assess whether eviction would be just and equitable. It is the responsibility of the applicants to ensure such a report is placed before the court. Without this, the application for eviction cannot succeed, despite the respondents being...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 252
Parties
Applicant: Prince Surprise Mofamadi; Applicant: Maseu Mashabela; Respondent: Ella Mokhuane; Respondent: Occupiers of Erf 4[...] Unit [...] M[...]; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Case Number
032666-2023
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction application dismissed; respondents declared unlawful occupiers; each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
Lenyai
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Municipal Obligations, Acquisitive Prescription, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Municipal Obligations Acquisitive Prescription Just and Equitable Eviction

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prince Surprise Mofamadi

Applicant

Maseu Mashabela

Applicant

Ella Mokhuane

Respondent

Occupiers of Erf 4[...] Unit [...] M[...]

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' occupation of the applicants' property is lawful.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of the PIE Act for eviction have been met.
  3. 3 Whether the absence of a municipal report precludes the granting of an eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants are the registered owners of the property and the respondents are unlawful occupiers, as they occupy without consent and have not raised any valid defence in these proceedings. However, the PIE Act requires the court to consider all relevant circumstances, including the availability of alternate accommodation, before granting an eviction order. The absence of a municipal report on alternate accommodation means the court cannot properly assess whether eviction would be just and equitable. It is the responsibility of the applicants to ensure such a report is placed before the court. Without this, the application for eviction cannot succeed, despite the respondents being...

Court Disposition

Eviction application dismissed; respondents declared unlawful occupiers; each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are declared unlawful occupiers of ERF 4[...] Unit [...] M[...].
  • The application for eviction is dismissed.