Moseta v Chauke and Others (57885/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 632 (10 August 2018)

Moseta v Chauke and Others (57885/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 632 (10 August 2018)

The court found that the first to third respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act, as they reside on the property without the owner's consent and their expectation to inherit does not confer a legal right to occupy. The respondents have lived on the property for over twenty years, activating the PIE Act's requirement to consider whether eviction is just and equitable. The court considered the respondents' personal circumstances, including unemployment and family support, and found no evidence that they would be rendered homeless or unable to secure alternative accommodation. The City of Tshwane confirmed no vacant residential property is available but indicated that rental...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 632
Parties
Applicant: Makubata Andries Moseta; Respondent: Lucky Chauke; Respondent: Solomon Chauke; Respondent: Refilwe Moseta (born Chauke); Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2018
Case Number
57885/2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents to vacate within 120 days; costs awarded against respondents.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Intestate Succession, Unlawful Occupation, Just and Equitable Eviction, Alternative Accommodation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Intestate Succession Unlawful Occupation Just and Equitable Eviction Alternative Accommodation

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makubata Andries Moseta

Applicant

Lucky Chauke

Respondent

Solomon Chauke

Respondent

Refilwe Moseta (born Chauke)

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first to third respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondents from the property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have any right to occupy the property by virtue of their potential inheritance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first to third respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act, as they reside on the property without the owner's consent and their expectation to inherit does not confer a legal right to occupy. The respondents have lived on the property for over twenty years, activating the PIE Act's requirement to consider whether eviction is just and equitable. The court considered the respondents' personal circumstances, including unemployment and family support, and found no evidence that they would be rendered homeless or unable to secure alternative accommodation. The City of Tshwane confirmed no vacant residential property is available but indicated that rental...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents to vacate within 120 days; costs awarded against respondents.

Orders

  • The first, second and third respondents and all those holding under them or any other person presently occupying Erf 1163, Soshanguve-GG, Pimville Street, Soshanguve Block GG, Gauteng are declared unlawful occupiers.
  • The first, second and third respondents and all those holding under them or any other person presently occupying the property through them are to be evicted within 120 days from the date of this order.