Passano v Erasmus (A163/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 March 2025)

Passano v Erasmus (A163/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 249 (12 March 2025)

The respondent made substantial and useful improvements to the property with the owner's consent, qualifying her as a bona fide possessor and occupier. Her enrichment lien constituted a real right enforceable against subsequent purchasers, including the appellant. The respondent's occupation was lawful under the lien until compensation for the improvements was made. The appellant's reliance on the Placaeten was misplaced, as there was no landlord/tenant relationship and the Placaeten do not apply to these facts. The appellant's enrichment claim was premised on alleged unlawful occupation, but since the occupation was found to be lawful, his claim failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 249
Parties
Appellant: Carel Passano; Respondent: Belinda Erasmus
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2025
Case Number
A163/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Enrichment Claim and Counter Claim in the Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
N Davis, C van der Westhuizen, NGM Mazibuko
Legal Topics
Enrichment Lien, Improvements to Property, Bona Fide Possessor, Eviction Defence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Enrichment Lien Improvements to Property Bona Fide Possessor Eviction Defence

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

Parties

Carel Passano

Appellant

Belinda Erasmus

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Enrichment Claim and Counter Claim in the Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent effected necessary and/or useful improvements to the property and holds an enrichment lien.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to remain in occupation of the property under a lien.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to compensation or eviction based on the respondent's occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent made substantial and useful improvements to the property with the owner's consent, qualifying her as a bona fide possessor and occupier. Her enrichment lien constituted a real right enforceable against subsequent purchasers, including the appellant. The respondent's occupation was lawful under the lien until compensation for the improvements was made. The appellant's reliance on the Placaeten was misplaced, as there was no landlord/tenant relationship and the Placaeten do not apply to these facts. The appellant's enrichment claim was premised on alleged unlawful occupation, but since the occupation was found to be lawful, his claim failed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed, with costs.