Philander v Makiet and Others (A61/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 106 (18 September 2020)

Philander v Makiet and Others (A61/2020) [2020] ZAWCHC 106 (18 September 2020)

The court held that the respondents became unlawful occupiers under PIE from the date the appellant took transfer of the property, as they no longer had the owner's consent to occupy. Even if a precarium existed, it did not bind the appellant as successor in title absent a tacit re-grant. The respondents were given both informal and formal notice to vacate, and had occupied the property for over 18 months since expiry of the notice. The court considered all relevant circumstances, including the appellant's lack of knowledge of any prior arrangement, the respondents' opportunity to find alternative accommodation, and the requirements of PIE and the Disaster Management Act regulations. It...

Citation
[2020] ZAWCHC 106
Parties
Appellant: Llewellyn Jo-Peter Philander; Respondent: Chadley Makiet; Respondent: All those holding title under Chadley Makiet; Respondent: Swartland Municipality
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Case Number
A61/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Eviction Order by Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order granted.
Judges
Rogers, Wille, Slingers
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Precarium, Just and Equitable Eviction, Reasonable Notice, Disaster Management Regulations
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Precarium Just and Equitable Eviction Reasonable Notice Disaster Management Regulations

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

Parties

Llewellyn Jo-Peter Philander

Appellant

Chadley Makiet

Respondent

All those holding title under Chadley Makiet

Respondent

Swartland Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Eviction Order by Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were unlawful occupiers under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' occupation was by virtue of a precarium and if so, whether the appellant was bound to honour it.
  3. 3 Whether reasonable notice to vacate was given to the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents became unlawful occupiers under PIE from the date the appellant took transfer of the property, as they no longer had the owner's consent to occupy. Even if a precarium existed, it did not bind the appellant as successor in title absent a tacit re-grant. The respondents were given both informal and formal notice to vacate, and had occupied the property for over 18 months since expiry of the notice. The court considered all relevant circumstances, including the appellant's lack of knowledge of any prior arrangement, the respondents' opportunity to find alternative accommodation, and the requirements of PIE and the Disaster Management Act regulations. It...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order granted.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The first respondent and all those occupying through him are ordered to vacate the property by no later than 31 October 2020, failing which the sheriff is authorised to evict them from Erf [...], Darling, Western Cape.