Nyirenda and Others v Njenjema and Another (18674/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 405 (19 October 2020)

Nyirenda and Others v Njenjema and Another (18674/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 405 (19 October 2020)

The respondent's occupation of the property was lawful only during his employment, which has ended. He has no valid defence to eviction and now occupies the property unlawfully. The court considered whether eviction would render him homeless and reviewed the municipal report, which indicated no urgent need and no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 405
Parties
Applicant: Samuel S Nyirenda; Applicant: Annah C Nyirenda; Applicant: Radha C Ramanlal; Applicant: Francois J Lubbe; Respondent: Richard Njenjema; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 October 2020
Case Number
18674/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE Act; Judgment After Hearing and Municipal Report
Outcome
Eviction granted with delayed implementation; respondent and all persons occupying with him must vacate within 120 days after the end of the lockdown period.
Judges
Vukeya
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Right to Housing, Municipal Obligations, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Right to Housing Municipal Obligations Unlawful Occupation +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel S Nyirenda

Applicant

Annah C Nyirenda

Applicant

Radha C Ramanlal

Applicant

Francois J Lubbe

Applicant

Richard Njenjema

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE Act; Judgment After Hearing and Municipal Report

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent occupies the property unlawfully after termination of employment.
  2. 2 Whether eviction would render the respondent homeless and if it is just and equitable to grant the order.
  3. 3 Whether the municipality is obliged to provide emergency accommodation to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's occupation of the property was lawful only during his employment, which has ended. He has no valid defence to eviction and now occupies the property unlawfully. The court considered whether eviction would render him homeless and reviewed the municipal report, which indicated no urgent need and no available emergency accommodation due to backlog and budget constraints. The respondent receives a disability grant and supplementary income, and there are no children or elderly persons affected. The court found that the respondent would not be rendered homeless if given sufficient time to secure alternative accommodation. Balancing the applicants' property rights and the...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted with delayed implementation; respondent and all persons occupying with him must vacate within 120 days after the end of the lockdown period.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all persons occupying with and through him are evicted from Erf 84, Bezuidenhout Valley, also known as 76 5th Avenue, Bezuidenhout Valley Johannesburg.
  • The first respondent and any person occupying with him must vacate the property exactly 120 days after the last day of the lockdown period; calculation includes weekends and holidays.