Perumal v Songca and Others (D3715/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 42 (17 July 2023)

Perumal v Songca and Others (D3715/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 42 (17 July 2023)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having purchased it at a sale in execution without notice of any defect. The second respondent's agreement with the first respondent does not confer any enforceable right against the applicant, as it was not completed and did not result in transfer. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, including the needs of vulnerable persons and the availability of alternative accommodation. The second respondent is employed and capable of securing alternative accommodation. She has occupied the property without payment since March 2021, and no compelling circumstances have been disclosed to justify...

Citation
[2023] ZAKZDHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Sivalingam Perumal; First Respondent: Mandla Songca; Second Respondent: Fikile Zondi; Third Respondent: Ethekwini Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 July 2023
Case Number
D3715/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all persons occupying through them; second respondent to pay costs.
Judges
Mossop
Legal Topics
Eviction, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Sale in Execution, Ownership, Title Deed Evidence
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Sale in Execution Ownership Title Deed Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sivalingam Perumal

Applicant

Mandla Songca

First Respondent

Fikile Zondi

Second Respondent

Ethekwini Municipality

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the second respondent from the property under the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent's agreement with the first respondent confers any enforceable right against the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order and determine the date for vacating the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having purchased it at a sale in execution without notice of any defect. The second respondent's agreement with the first respondent does not confer any enforceable right against the applicant, as it was not completed and did not result in transfer. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, including the needs of vulnerable persons and the availability of alternative accommodation. The second respondent is employed and capable of securing alternative accommodation. She has occupied the property without payment since March 2021, and no compelling circumstances have been disclosed to justify...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all persons occupying through them; second respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents, and all other persons unlawfully occupying through them, are directed to vacate the immovable property situated at 1[...] S[...] Road, New Germany, Pinetown by no later than close of business of 31 August 2023.
  • In the event of the first and second respondents failing or refusing to comply, the Sheriff is authorised and empowered to eject them and all other persons unlawfully occupying the property through them.