Peter v Perimal (467/2009) [2009] ZAKZDHC 71 (26 November 2009)

Peter v Perimal (467/2009) [2009] ZAKZDHC 71 (26 November 2009)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having purchased it at a sale in execution and obtained transfer. The respondent does not dispute the applicant's title nor allege any procedural irregularity in the sale or transfer. No factual basis exists for a finding that the applicant acted in bad faith or with knowledge of defects. The respondent's pending application to set aside the sale and transfer does not provide grounds to refuse eviction, as no order was granted to stay transfer and no facts were furnished that would impugn the applicant's bona fides. The requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act have been met....

Citation
[2009] ZAKZDHC 71
Parties
Applicant: Sentoshnee Peter; Respondent: Soobramoney Perimal
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 November 2009
Case Number
467/2009
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance
Outcome
Eviction order granted in favour of the applicant; respondent and all persons occupying under his authority ordered to vacate the property within ten days; costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
Swain
Legal Topics
Eviction, Sale in Execution, Transfer of Property, Bona Fide Purchaser, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Sale in Execution Transfer of Property Bona Fide Purchaser Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sentoshnee Peter

Applicant

Soobramoney Perimal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the respondent from the property as the registered owner.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's pending application to set aside the sale and transfer of the property justifies refusal of eviction.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant acted in bad faith or with knowledge of defects in the sale or transfer.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having purchased it at a sale in execution and obtained transfer. The respondent does not dispute the applicant's title nor allege any procedural irregularity in the sale or transfer. No factual basis exists for a finding that the applicant acted in bad faith or with knowledge of defects. The respondent's pending application to set aside the sale and transfer does not provide grounds to refuse eviction, as no order was granted to stay transfer and no facts were furnished that would impugn the applicant's bona fides. The requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act have been met....

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted in favour of the applicant; respondent and all persons occupying under his authority ordered to vacate the property within ten days; costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • The respondent and all persons occupying under his authority are ordered to vacate the property within ten (10) days of service of this order and to deliver the keys to the applicant or her agent.
  • If the respondent and those occupying under his authority fail to comply, the Sheriff or Deputy is authorised to eject them and take all necessary steps to give effect to the order.