Moosa NO and Others v Kotze (200/2020) [2020] ZAECPEHC 31 (1 September 2020)

Moosa NO and Others v Kotze (200/2020) [2020] ZAECPEHC 31 (1 September 2020)

The respondent's continued occupation of the premises after the lease expired was unlawful, and no legal grounds justified his remaining. The respondent conceded the applicants' right to eviction and accepted liability for costs, except for those related to the procedural postponement. The court confirmed its...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAECPEHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Anwar Hoosen Moosa N.O.; Applicant: Nasser Moosa N.O.; Applicant: Mohamed Shabeer Moosa N.O.; Respondent: Pierre Kotze
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 September 2020
Case Number
200/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the respondent, with suspension for one month; costs awarded against respondent on attorney and client scale except for 30 July 2020, for which each party bears their own costs.
Judges
O H Ronaasen
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Agreement, Suspension of Execution, Costs Award
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Agreement Suspension of Execution Costs Award

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anwar Hoosen Moosa N.O.

Applicant

Nasser Moosa N.O.

Applicant

Mohamed Shabeer Moosa N.O.

Applicant

Pierre Kotze

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an eviction order against the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the court has discretion to suspend the eviction order and, if so, for what period.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the proceedings, including those occasioned by the postponement on 30 July 2020.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's continued occupation of the premises after the lease expired was unlawful, and no legal grounds justified his remaining. The respondent conceded the applicants' right to eviction and accepted liability for costs, except for those related to the procedural postponement. The court confirmed its discretion to suspend the eviction order but found no compelling reason to grant the requested two-month suspension, as the respondent's reasons were solely for his convenience and did not relate to the survival of a business. The court determined that a one-month suspension was appropriate to allow voluntary vacation and avoid the costs of sheriff-enforced eviction. Costs were...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the respondent, with suspension for one month; costs awarded against respondent on attorney and client scale except for 30 July 2020, for which each party bears their own costs.

Orders

  • The eviction of the respondent and all persons occupying through him from 14 Darby Road, Deal Party, Port Elizabeth is authorised.
  • The operation of the eviction order is suspended for one month from the date of the order to allow voluntary vacation.