Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (A640/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1003 (6 December 2016)

Pitje and Another v Joubert and Another (A640/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1003 (6 December 2016)

The court found that the appellants were no longer in occupation of the property and had no intention to return, and that the lease term had expired. The counter-application did not raise any live issue, as the relief sought was no longer relevant and the action proceedings had been withdrawn. The only remaining issue was costs, but the Superior Courts Act provides that appeals should not be heard solely on costs unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1003
Parties
Appellant: Simon Molefe Pitje; Appellant: Nelly Pitje; Respondent: Jean Ewald Joubert; Respondent: The Metropolitan Municipality of the City of Tshwane
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 December 2016
Case Number
A640/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
S Yacoob, R G Tolmay
Legal Topics
Eviction, Lease Agreement, Appeal Costs, Counter Application, Spoliation Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Lease Agreement Appeal Costs Counter Application Spoliation Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Molefe Pitje

Appellant

Nelly Pitje

Appellant

Jean Ewald Joubert

Respondent

The Metropolitan Municipality of the City of Tshwane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Eviction Order From Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal against the eviction order has any practical effect given the appellants are no longer in occupation and do not wish to return.
  2. 2 Whether the counter-application raises any live issue for determination.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded in circumstances where no substantive relief is granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants were no longer in occupation of the property and had no intention to return, and that the lease term had expired. The counter-application did not raise any live issue, as the relief sought was no longer relevant and the action proceedings had been withdrawn. The only remaining issue was costs, but the Superior Courts Act provides that appeals should not be heard solely on costs unless exceptional circumstances exist, which were not present. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to pay its own costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs pertaining to the appeal.