Molatedi and Another v Lempe and Others (4236/2018) [2019] ZAFSHC 27 (14 March 2019)
The applicants proved ownership of the property through a registered title deed. The respondents failed to establish a valid defence to the eviction, as their alleged allocation and deed of sale from the municipality did not constitute legal title. The court found that all procedural requirements under the PIE Act were met, including proper notice and engagement with the municipality. The municipality offered alternative accommodation, and the eviction would not render the respondents homeless. The court exercised its discretion, finding it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with sixty days afforded to the respondents to vacate. The applicants' affidavit was accepted as...
- Citation
- [2019] ZAFSHC 27
- Parties
- Applicant: Seiphemo Abraham Molatedi; Applicant: Gabaikangwe Sarah Nkhashu; Respondent: Nkgono Papadi Lempe; Respondent: All other occupants of the property Erf [...], Mangaung, District Bloemfontein, Free State Province; Respondent: Mangaung Local Municipality
- Court
- Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 14 March 2019
- Case Number
- 4236/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE Act; Opposed; Judgment Delivered After Oral Argument
- Outcome
- Eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate within sixty days; costs awarded on magistrate scale.
- Judges
- Chesiwe
- Legal Topics
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Title Deed Evidence, Just and Equitable Eviction, Municipal Alternative Accommodation, Commissioner of Oaths Compliance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Seiphemo Abraham Molatedi
Applicant
Gabaikangwe Sarah Nkhashu
Applicant
Nkgono Papadi Lempe
Respondent
All other occupants of the property Erf [...], Mangaung, District Bloemfontein, Free State Province
Respondent
Mangaung Local Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE Act; Opposed; Judgment Delivered After Oral Argument
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers of the applicants' property.
- 2 Whether it is just and equitable to order the eviction of the respondents and their minor children.
- 3 Whether the applicants' affidavit complies with the requirements for commissioning under the Oaths Act.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants proved ownership of the property through a registered title deed. The respondents failed to establish a valid defence to the eviction, as their alleged allocation and deed of sale from the municipality did not constitute legal title. The court found that all procedural requirements under the PIE Act were met, including proper notice and engagement with the municipality. The municipality offered alternative accommodation, and the eviction would not render the respondents homeless. The court exercised its discretion, finding it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with sixty days afforded to the respondents to vacate. The applicants' affidavit was accepted as...
Court Disposition
Eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate within sixty days; costs awarded on magistrate scale.
Orders
- The first and second respondents are ordered to vacate Erf [...], Mangaung, District Bloemfontein, Free State Province, on or before 14 May 2019.
- The Sheriff is authorised, with or without the assistance of the South African Police Services, to evict the respondents and all other occupants and their movables from the property if they fail to vacate as ordered.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment