Rautenbach N.O and Another v Mteywa and Others (61345/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 912 (23 October 2015)

Rautenbach N.O and Another v Mteywa and Others (61345/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 912 (23 October 2015)

The court found that the respondents' right of occupation did not survive the sequestration of their estate and that they were unlawful occupiers subject to the provisions of the PIE Act. The applicants were not required to make allegations regarding termination of occupation in their founding papers, as the respondents' occupation was unlawful from the outset. The court held that the PIE Act and relevant case law require sufficient and effective notice to unlawful occupiers, which was provided. The respondents' grounds of appeal did not establish prospects of success or a basis for a different conclusion. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 912
Parties
Applicant: Elsje Rautenbach N.O; Applicant: Gunvantrai Muggan N.O; Respondent: Zwelakhe Gugulethu Mteywa (Mtetwa); Respondent: Prudence Nothemba Mteywa (Mtetwa); Respondent: All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Portion 28 of Erf 270, Buccleuch, Gauteng; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2015
Case Number
61345/2014
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Eviction Orders
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
K L A M Manamela
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Proceedings, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Leave to Appeal, Notice Requirements
Land and Property Civil Procedure Unlawful Occupation Eviction Proceedings Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Leave to Appeal Notice Requirements

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elsje Rautenbach N.O

Applicant

Gunvantrai Muggan N.O

Applicant

Zwelakhe Gugulethu Mteywa (Mtetwa)

Respondent

Prudence Nothemba Mteywa (Mtetwa)

Respondent

All the other unlawful occupiers residing on and/or occupying Portion 28 of Erf 270, Buccleuch, Gauteng

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment Granting Eviction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' right of occupation terminated automatically upon final sequestration.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants complied with section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether the applicants made out a case for termination of the right to occupy the property in their founding papers.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' right of occupation did not survive the sequestration of their estate and that they were unlawful occupiers subject to the provisions of the PIE Act. The applicants were not required to make allegations regarding termination of occupation in their founding papers, as the respondents' occupation was unlawful from the outset. The court held that the PIE Act and relevant case law require sufficient and effective notice to unlawful occupiers, which was provided. The respondents' grounds of appeal did not establish prospects of success or a basis for a different conclusion. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused with costs.