Nkomo v Mqokozo and Another (690/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 9 (9 May 2019)

Nkomo v Mqokozo and Another (690/2018) [2019] ZAECBHC 9 (9 May 2019)

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the first respondent failed to prove she acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription. Her possession was not shown to be adverse or as owner, but rather stemmed from an aborted sale. The defence of res judicata was dismissed due to lack of admissible evidence and failure to meet its requirements. The first respondent admitted to owning alternative accommodation, and the applicant complied with the notice requirements under PIE. The court held that the first respondent is an unlawful occupier and that eviction is just and equitable, with no reason to delay her removal given her alternative...

Citation
[2019] ZAECBHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Bochabelo Worrel Vincent Oreily Nkomo; Respondent: Nompucuko Mqokozo; Respondent: Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2019
Case Number
690/2018
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction application granted; first respondent declared unlawful occupier and ordered to vacate property.
Judges
V M Nqumse
Legal Topics
Eviction, Acquisitive Prescription, Unlawful Occupation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Res Judicata
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Acquisitive Prescription Unlawful Occupation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Res Judicata

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bochabelo Worrel Vincent Oreily Nkomo

Applicant

Nompucuko Mqokozo

Respondent

Buffalo City Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is an unlawful occupier of the property.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent has acquired ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of res judicata is applicable to bar the eviction application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the first respondent failed to prove she acquired ownership through acquisitive prescription. Her possession was not shown to be adverse or as owner, but rather stemmed from an aborted sale. The defence of res judicata was dismissed due to lack of admissible evidence and failure to meet its requirements. The first respondent admitted to owning alternative accommodation, and the applicant complied with the notice requirements under PIE. The court held that the first respondent is an unlawful occupier and that eviction is just and equitable, with no reason to delay her removal given her alternative...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; first respondent declared unlawful occupier and ordered to vacate property.

Orders

  • The first respondent is declared an unlawful occupier of the property described as No. 535, Zone 4, Zwelitsha.
  • The first respondent and any other persons occupying the property with and through her are evicted from the property.