Murray NO and Another v Msibi and Others (26535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 209 (20 March 2020)

Murray NO and Another v Msibi and Others (26535/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 209 (20 March 2020)

The court found that the applicants, as trustees of the insolvent estate, had complied with the requirements of section 4(2) of the PIE Act by serving notice on the respondents and the municipality, both personally and via their attorney. The respondents were aware of the proceedings and their rights. The respondents failed to comply with a court order to file heads of argument, resulting in their defence being struck out. The court considered the circumstances of the respondents, including the presence of minor children, but found no valid defence to resist eviction. The continued unlawful occupation deprived the estate of rental income and prevented the sale of the property for the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 209
Parties
Applicant: Cloete Murray N.O.; Applicant: Asad Suliman N.O.; Respondent: Sifiso Aubrey Msibi; Respondent: Mmapheko Doris Msibi; Respondent: Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2020
Case Number
26535/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment After Application for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all persons claiming occupation through or under them. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
BL Makola
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Notice Requirements, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Notice Requirements Just and Equitable Eviction

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cloete Murray N.O.

Applicant

Asad Suliman N.O.

Applicant

Sifiso Aubrey Msibi

Respondent

Mmapheko Doris Msibi

Respondent

Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment After Application for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of section 4(2) of the PIE Act regarding notice and service were met.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondents and their minor children from the property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have raised any valid defence to resist eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as trustees of the insolvent estate, had complied with the requirements of section 4(2) of the PIE Act by serving notice on the respondents and the municipality, both personally and via their attorney. The respondents were aware of the proceedings and their rights. The respondents failed to comply with a court order to file heads of argument, resulting in their defence being struck out. The court considered the circumstances of the respondents, including the presence of minor children, but found no valid defence to resist eviction. The continued unlawful occupation deprived the estate of rental income and prevented the sale of the property for the...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all persons claiming occupation through or under them. Costs awarded against the first and second respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are ejected and evicted from Portions 1 and 2, Erf Hyde Park Township, Registration Division IR, held by Deed of Title T60331/2010.
  • The first and second respondents and all persons claiming occupation through or under them must vacate the property by 20 April 2020.