Pheto v Phahlane and Others (2024-024491) [2024] ZAGPPHC 941 (17 September 2024)

Pheto v Phahlane and Others (2024-024491) [2024] ZAGPPHC 941 (17 September 2024)

The applicant, as the registered owner, is entitled to occupation of the property. The second respondent and her children have no legal right to remain in occupation, and their continued presence is unlawful. The court considered all relevant circumstances, including the impact on minor children and the lack of evidence of indigence or basic housing need. The second respondent failed to provide sufficient information or take steps to secure maintenance or alternative accommodation. The applicant's hardship and inability to enjoy his property outweigh the second respondent's claims. The court exercised its discretion to set the eviction date during the school holidays to minimize...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 941
Parties
Applicant: Sepanki Johannes Pheto; Respondent: Letsepe Mphela Phahlane; Respondent: Cindy Makwena Phahlane; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2024
Case Number
2024-024491
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Motion After Initial Urgent Application and Postponement
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all those occupying through them; claim for occupational rent and automatic rental interdict dismissed; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Scheepers
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Order, Occupational Rent, Maintenance Obligations, Costs Award

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

Parties

Sepanki Johannes Pheto

Applicant

Letsepe Mphela Phahlane

Respondent

Cindy Makwena Phahlane

Respondent

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Motion After Initial Urgent Application and Postponement

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the first and second respondents and those occupying through them.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent and her minor children have any legal right to remain in occupation of the property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to occupational rent and an automatic rental interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as the registered owner, is entitled to occupation of the property. The second respondent and her children have no legal right to remain in occupation, and their continued presence is unlawful. The court considered all relevant circumstances, including the impact on minor children and the lack of evidence of indigence or basic housing need. The second respondent failed to provide sufficient information or take steps to secure maintenance or alternative accommodation. The applicant's hardship and inability to enjoy his property outweigh the second respondent's claims. The court exercised its discretion to set the eviction date during the school holidays to minimize...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first and second respondents and all those occupying through them; claim for occupational rent and automatic rental interdict dismissed; costs awarded against first and second respondents jointly and severally on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents, and all those holding occupation through them, are evicted and ejected from 2021 Diana Street, Newmark Estate, Pretoria (Erf 1[...], N[...] Estate).
  • The first and/or second respondent and all those who occupy through them shall vacate the property on or before 24 September 2024 at 17h00.