Nkoane and Another v Mathabathe (A276/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 668 (5 July 2024)

Nkoane and Another v Mathabathe (A276/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 668 (5 July 2024)

The High Court found that the Magistrate failed to conduct the required inquiry into the risk of homelessness for the appellants, particularly in light of uncontroverted evidence of their destitution and inability to maintain their children. The Magistrate's judgment was factually incorrect in stating that no evidence of homelessness was placed before the court, as the appellants had pleaded financial hardship and lack of alternative accommodation. The court emphasized that section 4 of the PIE Act obliges courts to consider all relevant circumstances and actively investigate the risk of homelessness before granting eviction orders. The Magistrate's failure to do so rendered the eviction...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 668
Parties
Appellant: Mokoto Nkoane; Appellant: Other unlawful occupiers of property situated at ERF 3[…], Extension 03 M[...] V[...] Mamelodi East, Pretoria; Respondent: Rambo Mathabathe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2024
Case Number
A276/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; matter remitted for inquiry into homelessness.
Judges
Flatela, Motha
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Homelessness in Eviction, Constitutional Right to Housing, Matrimonial Property Dispute
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Homelessness in Eviction Constitutional Right to Housing Matrimonial Property Dispute

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokoto Nkoane

Appellant

Other unlawful occupiers of property situated at ERF 3[…], Extension 03 M[...] V[...] Mamelodi East, Pretoria

Appellant

Rambo Mathabathe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Magistrate erred in finding that eviction of the appellants was just and equitable under section 4 of the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the risk of homelessness for the appellants and their children.
  3. 3 Whether the evidence of destitution and lack of alternative accommodation was adequately considered.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the Magistrate failed to conduct the required inquiry into the risk of homelessness for the appellants, particularly in light of uncontroverted evidence of their destitution and inability to maintain their children. The Magistrate's judgment was factually incorrect in stating that no evidence of homelessness was placed before the court, as the appellants had pleaded financial hardship and lack of alternative accommodation. The court emphasized that section 4 of the PIE Act obliges courts to consider all relevant circumstances and actively investigate the risk of homelessness before granting eviction orders. The Magistrate's failure to do so rendered the eviction...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order set aside; matter remitted for inquiry into homelessness.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The Magistrate's court order that the eviction is just and equitable is set aside.