Pfotenhauer v Butcher and Others (3497/14) [2014] ZAKZDHC 38 (19 September 2014)

Pfotenhauer v Butcher and Others (3497/14) [2014] ZAKZDHC 38 (19 September 2014)

The court found that the respondents had vacated the premises prior to the hearing, rendering the eviction relief moot. The only issue remaining was costs. The respondents' application to strike out paragraphs of the replying affidavit was dismissed as those paragraphs did not introduce new, scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant material. The court held that the applicant had followed the correct procedure under PIE, as per the prevailing practice in the KwaZulu-Natal Division. There was no real dispute of fact on the papers, as the respondents' affidavits consisted largely of bare denials and failed to address the applicant's allegations substantively. The respondents' conduct, including...

Citation
[2014] ZAKZDHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Donald Walter Pfotenhauer; Respondent: Helen Butcher; Respondent: John Butcher; Respondent: Ethekweni Municipality
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Case Number
3497/14
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Costs Determination After Eviction Application Overtaken by Events
Outcome
Costs awarded to the applicant on the attorney and client scale, including reserved costs.
Judges
Marks AJ
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Procedure, Costs Award, Application Vs Action Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Procedure Costs Award Application Vs Action Procedure

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Walter Pfotenhauer

Applicant

Helen Butcher

Respondent

John Butcher

Respondent

Ethekweni Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Costs Determination After Eviction Application Overtaken by Events

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to costs after the respondents vacated the premises before the hearing.
  2. 2 Whether paragraphs 3-14 of the applicant's replying affidavit should be struck out as scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant adopted the correct procedure under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had vacated the premises prior to the hearing, rendering the eviction relief moot. The only issue remaining was costs. The respondents' application to strike out paragraphs of the replying affidavit was dismissed as those paragraphs did not introduce new, scandalous, vexatious or irrelevant material. The court held that the applicant had followed the correct procedure under PIE, as per the prevailing practice in the KwaZulu-Natal Division. There was no real dispute of fact on the papers, as the respondents' affidavits consisted largely of bare denials and failed to address the applicant's allegations substantively. The respondents' conduct, including...

Court Disposition

Costs awarded to the applicant on the attorney and client scale, including reserved costs.

Orders

  • Costs are awarded to the applicant on the scale of attorney and client in the present application, including the reserved costs occasioned on 2 June 2014.