Plaatjies v Eastern Cape Development Corporation and Another (1088/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 24 (29 February 2008)

Plaatjies v Eastern Cape Development Corporation and Another (1088/2007) [2008] ZAECHC 24 (29 February 2008)

The court found that the eviction of the applicant was unlawful because no court order authorising the eviction had been granted, as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution. The default judgment obtained by the first respondent did not include an eviction order, and the warrant of execution was based on incorrect information. Furthermore, the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 were not complied with. The first respondent, as an organ of state, was criticised for its conduct, which showed disregard for constitutional rights and legal procedures. The court declared the eviction unlawful, interdicted the respondent from...

Citation
[2008] ZAECHC 24
Parties
Applicant: Isak Plaatjies; Respondent: Eastern Cape Development Corporation; Respondent: Messenger of the Court
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 February 2008
Case Number
1088/2007
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application granted; eviction declared unlawful; interdict confirmed; costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
C Plasket
Legal Topics
Unlawful Eviction, Section 26 Constitution, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Interdict, Default Judgment, Organ of State Conduct
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Unlawful Eviction Section 26 Constitution Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Interdict Default Judgment +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Isak Plaatjies

Applicant

Eastern Cape Development Corporation

Respondent

Messenger of the Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction of the applicant from his home was lawful without a court order as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 were complied with.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent, as an organ of state, acted lawfully in evicting the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the eviction of the applicant was unlawful because no court order authorising the eviction had been granted, as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution. The default judgment obtained by the first respondent did not include an eviction order, and the warrant of execution was based on incorrect information. Furthermore, the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 were not complied with. The first respondent, as an organ of state, was criticised for its conduct, which showed disregard for constitutional rights and legal procedures. The court declared the eviction unlawful, interdicted the respondent from...

Court Disposition

Application granted; eviction declared unlawful; interdict confirmed; costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • It is declared that the first respondent's eviction of the applicant from his home at No. 24 Don Thompson Drive, Fort Gale, Mthatha was unlawful because no order of court, as required by section 26(3) of the Constitution, authorised it and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful...
  • The first respondent is interdicted from evicting the applicant from his home at No. 24 Don Thompson Drive, Fort Gale, Mthatha without an order of court having been obtained and the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (and any other applicable law)...