Moiloa and Another v Nyokong and Others (128/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 42 (30 May 2007)

Moiloa and Another v Nyokong and Others (128/2007) [2007] ZAFSHC 42 (30 May 2007)

The court found that the applicants failed to prove that the respondents were unlawful occupiers at the time of launching the proceedings. The correspondence between the parties' attorneys indicated ongoing negotiations for the sale of the property, and the applicants never expressly demanded that the respondents vacate the premises after rejecting the offer to purchase. The applicants' conduct amounted to tacit consent or acquiescence to the respondents' continued occupation. Without an express act terminating such consent, the requirements for eviction under the PIE Act were not met. The application was accordingly dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Citation
[2007] ZAFSHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Tshegofatso Botsala Moiloa; Applicant: Otshego Tshiamo Moiloa; Respondent: Pascal Dichabe Nonamodi Nyokong; Respondent: Jeanette Galetlala Nyokong; Respondent: Mangaung Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2007
Case Number
128/2007
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.
Judges
C.J. Musi
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Tacit Consent, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Tacit Consent Eviction Procedure

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

Parties

Tshegofatso Botsala Moiloa

Applicant

Otshego Tshiamo Moiloa

Applicant

Pascal Dichabe Nonamodi Nyokong

Respondent

Jeanette Galetlala Nyokong

Respondent

Mangaung Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were unlawful occupiers at the time of the application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants expressly or tacitly consented to the respondents' continued occupation.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act were met.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to prove that the respondents were unlawful occupiers at the time of launching the proceedings. The correspondence between the parties' attorneys indicated ongoing negotiations for the sale of the property, and the applicants never expressly demanded that the respondents vacate the premises after rejecting the offer to purchase. The applicants' conduct amounted to tacit consent or acquiescence to the respondents' continued occupation. Without an express act terminating such consent, the requirements for eviction under the PIE Act were not met. The application was accordingly dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to respondents.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the respondents' costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.