Msomi v Mabuza and Another (2021/18396) [2023] ZAGPJHC 455 (11 May 2023)

Msomi v Mabuza and Another (2021/18396) [2023] ZAGPJHC 455 (11 May 2023)

The applicant has established ownership of the property and the first respondent occupies it without consent or lawful reason. The first respondent has failed to provide any valid defence or evidence supporting her continued occupation, nor has she substantiated her claim of a rescission application. The court finds that the requirements of the PIE Act have been met and, in the absence of any valid defence, is obliged to grant an eviction order. The court considers the respondent's personal circumstances, noting her unemployment and family, but finds no evidence that eviction would render her destitute. Accordingly, a just and equitable date for eviction is determined.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 455
Parties
Applicant: Susan Miriam Msomi; Respondent: Faith Mbali Mabuza; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 May 2023
Case Number
2021/18396
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Determination
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those occupying through her; costs awarded against the first respondent.
Judges
Malungana
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Order

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Miriam Msomi

Applicant

Faith Mbali Mabuza

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is an unlawful occupier under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established ownership and entitlement to eviction.
  3. 3 Whether any valid defence to eviction has been raised by the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has established ownership of the property and the first respondent occupies it without consent or lawful reason. The first respondent has failed to provide any valid defence or evidence supporting her continued occupation, nor has she substantiated her claim of a rescission application. The court finds that the requirements of the PIE Act have been met and, in the absence of any valid defence, is obliged to grant an eviction order. The court considers the respondent's personal circumstances, noting her unemployment and family, but finds no evidence that eviction would render her destitute. Accordingly, a just and equitable date for eviction is determined.

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those occupying through her; costs awarded against the first respondent.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all those who occupy the property through her are evicted from the property known as[…], Protea North.
  • The first respondent and/or all unlawful occupiers are directed to vacate the property on or before 30 June 2023.