Moloko v Sedumedi and Others (48138/17) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1145 (8 November 2024)

Moloko v Sedumedi and Others (48138/17) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1145 (8 November 2024)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate lawful termination of the respondents' right to occupy the property. Both Nedbank and the applicant did not formally terminate the respondents' occupation, and the respondents remained lawful occupiers by virtue of the executrix appointment and prior consent. As the PIE Act only applies to unlawful occupiers, the application for eviction was incompetent. The respondents are not unlawful occupiers, and no valid case for eviction under PIE was made out.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1145
Parties
Applicant: Kelo Karabo Moloko; Respondent: Matladi Silah Sedumedi N.O; Respondent: All Occupants of 8[…] P[…] Road, B[…]; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 November 2024
Case Number
48138/17
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Kekana ND
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lawful Vs Unlawful Occupation, Termination of Right of Occupation, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Lawful Vs Unlawful Occupation Termination of Right of Occupation 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kelo Karabo Moloko

Applicant

Matladi Silah Sedumedi N.O

Respondent

All Occupants of 8[…] P[…] Road, B[…]

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case for eviction under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' right of occupation was lawfully terminated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate lawful termination of the respondents' right to occupy the property. Both Nedbank and the applicant did not formally terminate the respondents' occupation, and the respondents remained lawful occupiers by virtue of the executrix appointment and prior consent. As the PIE Act only applies to unlawful occupiers, the application for eviction was incompetent. The respondents are not unlawful occupiers, and no valid case for eviction under PIE was made out.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.