Motete and Another v Mogorosi (A20/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 175 (18 September 2014)

Motete and Another v Mogorosi (A20/2014) [2014] ZAFSHC 175 (18 September 2014)

The court held that the respondent was neither the registered owner nor the person in charge of the property as defined in the PIE Act. The Deed of Sale relied upon by the respondent was invalid, as it did not comply with section 22 of the North-West Housing Corporation Act, lacking the required signatures and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAFSHC 175
Parties
Appellant: Lazarus Tumelo Motete; Appellant: Kedibone Martha Motete; Respondent: Lentikile Campbell Mogorosi
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2014
Case Number
A20/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs in the court below.
Judges
Motloung, Rampai
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Locus Standi, Pie Act Requirements, Validity of Deed of Sale
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Locus Standi Pie Act Requirements Validity of Deed of Sale

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lazarus Tumelo Motete

Appellant

Kedibone Martha Motete

Appellant

Lentikile Campbell Mogorosi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had locus standi to institute eviction proceedings under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Deed of Sale between the respondent and NWHC was valid and conferred rights to the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural requirements of the PIE Act were complied with.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent was neither the registered owner nor the person in charge of the property as defined in the PIE Act. The Deed of Sale relied upon by the respondent was invalid, as it did not comply with section 22 of the North-West Housing Corporation Act, lacking the required signatures and authorization. Without a valid Deed of Sale and absent registration of the property in the respondent's name, he could not acquire locus standi to institute eviction proceedings. The magistrate erred in finding otherwise, and the respondent's application was fundamentally defective for lack of jurisdictional facts. The appeal was dismissed, and the eviction order set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs in the court below.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Costs are awarded against the respondent, including costs in the magistrate's court.