Msibi v Buthelezi and Others (22770/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 418 (10 October 2019)

Msibi v Buthelezi and Others (22770/2015) [2019] ZAGPJHC 418 (10 October 2019)

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and the second respondent occupies it unlawfully, as any permission from the previous owner ceased upon transfer. The second respondent's intention to challenge the sale and transfer does not create a legal basis for continued occupation, especially as she has not taken steps to bring such an application. The applicant suffers ongoing financial prejudice due to the respondent's occupation. The City of Johannesburg determined that the respondent does not qualify for temporary emergency accommodation, and she has not demonstrated that eviction would render her homeless. The court held that it is just and equitable to...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 418
Parties
Applicant: Khayelihle Luckyboy Msibi; Respondent: Nomgqibelo Mavis Buthelezi; Respondent: Sizile Ngamlana; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metro Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Case Number
22770/2015
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Eviction application granted with costs against the second respondent.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Just and Equitable Eviction, Condonation of Late Filing
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Just and Equitable Eviction Condonation of Late Filing

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

Parties

Khayelihle Luckyboy Msibi

Applicant

Nomgqibelo Mavis Buthelezi

Respondent

Sizile Ngamlana

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metro Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the second respondent under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's occupation is unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant the eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and the second respondent occupies it unlawfully, as any permission from the previous owner ceased upon transfer. The second respondent's intention to challenge the sale and transfer does not create a legal basis for continued occupation, especially as she has not taken steps to bring such an application. The applicant suffers ongoing financial prejudice due to the respondent's occupation. The City of Johannesburg determined that the respondent does not qualify for temporary emergency accommodation, and she has not demonstrated that eviction would render her homeless. The court held that it is just and equitable to...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted with costs against the second respondent.

Orders

  • The application succeeds.
  • The second respondent and any person claiming occupation through or under her shall vacate the property within 30 days of service of this order.