Nunes v Nkosi and Another (26552/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 225 (27 January 2020)

Nunes v Nkosi and Another (26552/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 225 (27 January 2020)

The court found that the first respondent lacked locus standi to challenge the sale in execution or bring an application to set it aside, as he did not wholly own the CC and failed to provide a resolution authorising him to act on its behalf. The supplementary affidavit from the other member confirmed no authority was given. With no valid pending proceedings challenging the sale, there was no justification to delay the eviction application. The applicant established ownership and the unlawful occupation by the respondent. The respondent was not destitute and would not be rendered homeless, as he owned another property and had substantial income. The eviction was found to be just and...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 225
Parties
Applicant: Jose Antonio Borges Nunes; Respondent: Phakama Mpumelelo Nkosi; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 January 2020
Case Number
26552/2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondent and other occupiers ordered to vacate property within 45 days; costs awarded against first respondent.
Judges
NV Khumalo
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Eviction Procedure 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jose Antonio Borges Nunes

Applicant

Phakama Mpumelelo Nkosi

Respondent

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent has locus standi to challenge the sale in execution and bring an application to set aside the sale.
  2. 2 Whether the eviction of the first respondent and other occupiers is just and equitable under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  3. 3 Whether the occupation of the property by the first respondent and others is unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent lacked locus standi to challenge the sale in execution or bring an application to set it aside, as he did not wholly own the CC and failed to provide a resolution authorising him to act on its behalf. The supplementary affidavit from the other member confirmed no authority was given. With no valid pending proceedings challenging the sale, there was no justification to delay the eviction application. The applicant established ownership and the unlawful occupation by the respondent. The respondent was not destitute and would not be rendered homeless, as he owned another property and had substantial income. The eviction was found to be just and...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondent and other occupiers ordered to vacate property within 45 days; costs awarded against first respondent.

Orders

  • The occupation of the property by the first respondent and all other persons is declared illegal.
  • The first respondent and all persons currently occupying the property are evicted and interdicted from remaining in occupation.