Pitje v Shibambo and Others (CCT144/15) [2016] ZACC 5; 2016 (4) BCLR 460 (CC) (25 February 2016)

Pitje v Shibambo and Others (CCT144/15) [2016] ZACC 5; 2016 (4) BCLR 460 (CC) (25 February 2016)

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court failed to properly apply the requirements of section 4 of PIE, as it did not consider all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's age, health, and risk of homelessness. The High Court erred in refusing the applicant's application to file a rejoinder affidavit, which would have provided evidence regarding his lack of alternative accommodation. The Court emphasized that PIE requires a just and equitable enquiry, and courts must actively investigate the circumstances of vulnerable persons facing eviction. The reliance on the doctrine of notice and bona fide purchaser was misplaced in the context of eviction proceedings under PIE, as...

Citation
[2016] ZACC 5
Parties
Applicant: Isaac Rasepitla Pitje; Respondent: Josiah Oupa Shibambo; Respondent: Esther Veleminah Shibambo; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2016
Case Number
CCT 144/15
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Refusal by the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with this judgment.
Judges
Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Nkabinde, Nugent, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Double Sale of Property, Right to Adequate Housing, Condonation, Rejoinder Affidavit
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Double Sale of Property Right to Adequate Housing Condonation +1 more

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isaac Rasepitla Pitje

Applicant

Josiah Oupa Shibambo

Respondent

Esther Veleminah Shibambo

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Constitutional Court Following Refusal by the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirements of section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) were properly applied by the High Court.
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing the applicant's application to file a rejoinder affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order was just and equitable in light of the applicant's circumstances, including age, health, and risk of homelessness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court failed to properly apply the requirements of section 4 of PIE, as it did not consider all relevant circumstances, including the applicant's age, health, and risk of homelessness. The High Court erred in refusing the applicant's application to file a rejoinder affidavit, which would have provided evidence regarding his lack of alternative accommodation. The Court emphasized that PIE requires a just and equitable enquiry, and courts must actively investigate the circumstances of vulnerable persons facing eviction. The reliance on the doctrine of notice and bona fide purchaser was misplaced in the context of eviction proceedings under PIE, as...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; matter remitted for reconsideration in accordance with this judgment.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the application for leave to appeal is granted.
  • Leave to appeal is granted.