Red Stripe Trading 68 CC v Khumalo (31039/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 31 (23 March 2005)

Red Stripe Trading 68 CC v Khumalo (31039/04) [2005] ZAGPHC 31 (23 March 2005)

The court held that the applicant, as purchaser under a deed of sale who had not received transfer or actual possession of the property, lacked locus standi to seek eviction of the respondent under PIE. The applicant's rights were merely personal against the seller and did not constitute a real right enforceable against the respondent, who remained in occupation. PIE does not create substantive rights to evict but only regulates the procedure for eviction applications. Without transfer, possession, or cession of the owner's cause of action, the applicant could not proceed against the respondent. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 31
Parties
Applicant: Red Stripe Trading 68 CC; Respondent: Khumalo Mndau Joseph
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 March 2005
Case Number
31039/04
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Eviction Under PIE
Outcome
Application for eviction dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Judges
Gildenhuys
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Eviction Proceedings, Personal Vs Real Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Eviction Proceedings Personal Vs Real Rights

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red Stripe Trading 68 CC

Applicant

Khumalo Mndau Joseph

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Motion Court; Application for Eviction Under PIE

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the applicant have locus standi to seek eviction under PIE without being the registered owner or cessionary of the owner's cause of action?
  2. 2 Does a purchaser under a deed of sale, who has not received transfer or possession, qualify as 'person in charge' under PIE for purposes of eviction?
  3. 3 Does PIE confer substantive rights to evict or merely regulate procedure and prerequisites for eviction?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant, as purchaser under a deed of sale who had not received transfer or actual possession of the property, lacked locus standi to seek eviction of the respondent under PIE. The applicant's rights were merely personal against the seller and did not constitute a real right enforceable against the respondent, who remained in occupation. PIE does not create substantive rights to evict but only regulates the procedure for eviction applications. Without transfer, possession, or cession of the owner's cause of action, the applicant could not proceed against the respondent. The application was accordingly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.