Naidoo and Another v KZN Department of Human Settlements (2571/21) [2022] ZAKZDHC 50 (24 November 2022)

Naidoo and Another v KZN Department of Human Settlements (2571/21) [2022] ZAKZDHC 50 (24 November 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a rational basis for prospects of success on appeal. The evidence established that the applicants and persons occupying through them, specifically their son, were in unlawful occupation of the property. The applicants did not inform the respondent of vacating nor restore occupation by returning the keys. The respondent's understanding that the son occupied through the applicants was reasonable. The court was satisfied that the requirements of the PIE Act were met and that the eviction order was appropriate. The costs order was justified as the applicants opposed the application despite claiming to have vacated the property....

Citation
[2022] ZAKZDHC 50
Parties
Applicant: Kassan Naidoo; Applicant: Mogendrie Naidoo; Respondent: KZN Department of Human Settlements
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2022
Case Number
2571/21
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N F Mlaba
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Unlawful Occupation, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Unlawful Occupation Leave to Appeal Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kassan Naidoo

Applicant

Mogendrie Naidoo

Applicant

KZN Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have reasonable prospects of success on appeal against the eviction order.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction order was properly granted against the applicants and persons occupying through them.
  3. 3 Whether the costs order against the applicants was appropriate.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a rational basis for prospects of success on appeal. The evidence established that the applicants and persons occupying through them, specifically their son, were in unlawful occupation of the property. The applicants did not inform the respondent of vacating nor restore occupation by returning the keys. The respondent's understanding that the son occupied through the applicants was reasonable. The court was satisfied that the requirements of the PIE Act were met and that the eviction order was appropriate. The costs order was justified as the applicants opposed the application despite claiming to have vacated the property....

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.