Mokoena and Others v Malaza and Others (2014/31873) [2015] ZAGPPHC 542 (29 July 2015)

Mokoena and Others v Malaza and Others (2014/31873) [2015] ZAGPPHC 542 (29 July 2015)

The court found that there are material disputes of fact regarding the respondents' occupation and the alleged illegal structures on portion VO9 of the farm. The applicants allege unlawful occupation and illegal building, while the respondents deny these allegations and claim lawful occupation under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The facts cannot be properly determined on paper, and the matter requires a trial with full pleadings and discovery to establish the truth. Accordingly, the court directed that the notice of motion stand as a simple summons, the notice of intention to oppose as a notice of intention to defend, and that the applicants deliver a declaration by a specified...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 542
Parties
Applicant: Kenneth Tshepo Mokoena; Applicant: Stefaan Sithole; Applicant: Fana Enoch Nkosi; Applicant: Qondeni Mathebula; Applicant: The Somhlolo Trust; Respondent: Malaza Lillian; Respondent: Shabalala Poppy; Respondent: Pertunia Nkosi; Respondent: Mkhonza Nomthandazo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2015
Case Number
2014/31873
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Pre Trial Directions
Outcome
Matter to proceed to trial; costs reserved.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Unlawful Occupation Extension of Security of Tenure Act 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Tshepo Mokoena

Applicant

Stefaan Sithole

Applicant

Fana Enoch Nkosi

Applicant

Qondeni Mathebula

Applicant

The Somhlolo Trust

Applicant

Malaza Lillian

Respondent

Shabalala Poppy

Respondent

Pertunia Nkosi

Respondent

Mkhonza Nomthandazo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Pre Trial Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers of portion VO9 of the farm.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have built illegal structures on portion VO9.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' occupation is protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there are material disputes of fact regarding the respondents' occupation and the alleged illegal structures on portion VO9 of the farm. The applicants allege unlawful occupation and illegal building, while the respondents deny these allegations and claim lawful occupation under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act. The facts cannot be properly determined on paper, and the matter requires a trial with full pleadings and discovery to establish the truth. Accordingly, the court directed that the notice of motion stand as a simple summons, the notice of intention to oppose as a notice of intention to defend, and that the applicants deliver a declaration by a specified...

Court Disposition

Matter to proceed to trial; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The notice of motion stands as a simple summons.
  • The notice of intention to oppose stands as a notice of intention to defend.