Ramokheti v Calem N.O (A205/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 173 (10 September 2015)

Ramokheti v Calem N.O (A205/2014) [2015] ZAFSHC 173 (10 September 2015)

The court found that the respondent, as executrix, had locus standi and control over the property, supported by uncontested documentary evidence. The appellant’s shifting versions and lack of credible evidence undermined her defences, including the alleged improvement lien and oral sale agreement, which was void for lack of written form. The appellant was deemed an unlawful occupier, having failed to pay rent for almost six years and not established any valid right to remain. The magistrate correctly found that eviction was just and equitable under PIE, considering the interests of both parties and the absence of relevant hardship factors for the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and a...

Citation
[2015] ZAFSHC 173
Parties
Appellant: Monica Ramokheti; Respondent: Mmampho Emily Calem N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 September 2015
Case Number
A205/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eviction Order Granted by Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.
Judges
Lekale, Reinders
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Eviction Proceedings, Locus Standi, Improvement Lien, Oral Lease Agreement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Eviction Proceedings Locus Standi Improvement Lien Oral Lease Agreement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Monica Ramokheti

Appellant

Mmampho Emily Calem N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eviction Order Granted by Bloemfontein Magistrate’s Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent had locus standi and was the person in control of the property for purposes of eviction.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had a valid defence based on an alleged improvement lien or oral agreement of sale.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction order was just and equitable under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent, as executrix, had locus standi and control over the property, supported by uncontested documentary evidence. The appellant’s shifting versions and lack of credible evidence undermined her defences, including the alleged improvement lien and oral sale agreement, which was void for lack of written form. The appellant was deemed an unlawful occupier, having failed to pay rent for almost six years and not established any valid right to remain. The magistrate correctly found that eviction was just and equitable under PIE, considering the interests of both parties and the absence of relevant hardship factors for the appellant. The appeal was dismissed and a...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The appellant is ordered to vacate the property at 35536 Mangaung, Bloemfontein, no later than 30 September 2015 with all her belongings.