Netshongolwe and Another v Netshongolwe and Others (32842/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 52 (4 February 2022)

Netshongolwe and Another v Netshongolwe and Others (32842/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 52 (4 February 2022)

The court found that, although the applicants hold the title deed to the property, the respondents are not unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act. The second will, which has been registered and accepted by the Master, confers rights of ownership on all five siblings, including the respondents. Therefore, the respondents have a valid legal right to occupy the property. The applicants have not challenged the revocation of the first will or the registration of the second will, and the respondents have not sought to set aside the title deed. In these circumstances, the applicants cannot claim a greater lawful right to the property than the respondents. As the respondents have...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Netshongolwe; Applicant: Neledzani Jane Netshongolwe; Respondent: Ntshengedzeni Netshongolwe; Respondent: Alufheli Netshongolwe; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2022
Case Number
32842/2019
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Tlhotlhalemaje
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lawful Occupation, Title Deed Dispute, Succession and Wills
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Lawful Occupation Title Deed Dispute Succession and Wills

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

Thomas Netshongolwe

Applicant

Neledzani Jane Netshongolwe

Applicant

Ntshengedzeni Netshongolwe

Respondent

Alufheli Netshongolwe

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have a greater lawful claim to the property for purposes of eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have a valid legal right to remain in occupation of the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicants hold the title deed to the property, the respondents are not unlawful occupiers as defined by the PIE Act. The second will, which has been registered and accepted by the Master, confers rights of ownership on all five siblings, including the respondents. Therefore, the respondents have a valid legal right to occupy the property. The applicants have not challenged the revocation of the first will or the registration of the second will, and the respondents have not sought to set aside the title deed. In these circumstances, the applicants cannot claim a greater lawful right to the property than the respondents. As the respondents have...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' application is dismissed with costs.