Okoye and Another v Lockyer and Others (2022/43051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 623 (9 July 2024)

Okoye and Another v Lockyer and Others (2022/43051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 623 (9 July 2024)

The court found that the applicants' rights as property owners had been severely compromised by prolonged unlawful occupation and repeated delays, including the City's failure to timely assess and provide alternative accommodation. While the occupiers' need for housing is acknowledged, the applicants cannot be expected to bear the burden indefinitely. The order provides a fixed eviction date, allows for assessment and provision of TEA to qualifying occupiers, and makes special provision for elderly residents. The order is just and equitable, balancing the interests of all parties, and provides sufficient time for the City to comply with its obligations and for occupiers to seek relief if...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 623
Parties
Applicant: Simon Okoye; Applicant: Silindile Irene Immaculate Okoye; Respondent: Ian Bruce Lockyer (and all other unlawful occupants); Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 2 of Erf 813 Rosettenville, 18 Haig Street, Rosettenville; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of Remaining Extent of Erf 757 Rosettenville, 79 Mabel Street, Rosettenville; Respondent: Erf 758 Rosettenville, 81 Mabel Street, Rosettenville; Respondent: 54 George Street, Rosettenville; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of Erf 814 Rosettenville, 52 George Street, Rosettenville; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Unlawful Occupiers 'Annexure A'; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Social Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 July 2024
Case Number
2022/43051
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Order Under Pie; Final Order After Extended Delays and Multiple Prior Orders
Outcome
Eviction order granted; all unlawful occupiers to vacate by 31 January 2025. The City to assess and provide TEA to qualifying occupiers. Costs awarded to applicants against the City.
Judges
N Manoim
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Section 25 Property Rights, Temporary Emergency Accommodation, Municipal Obligations, Huur Gaat Voor Koop
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Section 25 Property Rights Temporary Emergency Accommodation Municipal Obligations +1 more

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Okoye

Applicant

Silindile Irene Immaculate Okoye

Applicant

Ian Bruce Lockyer (and all other unlawful occupants)

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers of Portion 2 of Erf 813 Rosettenville, 18 Haig Street, Rosettenville

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers of Remaining Extent of Erf 757 Rosettenville, 79 Mabel Street, Rosettenville

Respondent

Erf 758 Rosettenville, 81 Mabel Street, Rosettenville

Respondent

54 George Street, Rosettenville

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers of Erf 814 Rosettenville, 52 George Street, Rosettenville

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Unlawful Occupiers 'Annexure A'

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Social Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Order Under Pie; Final Order After Extended Delays and Multiple Prior Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order is just and equitable under PIE given the applicants' prolonged deprivation of property and the occupiers' need for alternative accommodation.
  2. 2 Whether the City of Johannesburg has fulfilled its statutory obligations to assess and provide Temporary Emergency Accommodation (TEA) to qualifying unlawful occupiers.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order should be conditional upon the City providing alternative accommodation before eviction is effected.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' rights as property owners had been severely compromised by prolonged unlawful occupation and repeated delays, including the City's failure to timely assess and provide alternative accommodation. While the occupiers' need for housing is acknowledged, the applicants cannot be expected to bear the burden indefinitely. The order provides a fixed eviction date, allows for assessment and provision of TEA to qualifying occupiers, and makes special provision for elderly residents. The order is just and equitable, balancing the interests of all parties, and provides sufficient time for the City to comply with its obligations and for occupiers to seek relief if...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted; all unlawful occupiers to vacate by 31 January 2025. The City to assess and provide TEA to qualifying occupiers. Costs awarded to applicants against the City.

Orders

  • All unlawful occupiers must vacate the specified properties by no later than 31 January 2025.
  • The Sheriff is authorized to evict all unlawful occupiers who fail to vacate by the deadline.