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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the first and second respondents and those occupying through them.
- 2 Whether the second respondent and her minor children have any legal right to remain in occupation of the property.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment