Rees-Gibbs and Another v Zikhali and Another (39681/ 2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 557 (11 October 2018)

Rees-Gibbs and Another v Zikhali and Another (39681/ 2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 557 (11 October 2018)

The respondents' right to occupy the property originated from the deed of sale and, after cancellation, from a lease agreement. Both agreements were breached by the respondents, who failed to pay the required amounts. The applicants followed the proper procedures for cancellation, rendering the respondents unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act. The respondents provided insufficient information regarding their personal circumstances and failed to disclose any valid defence or hardship that would make eviction unjust or inequitable. The property is not a sub-economic structure, and the respondents' socio-economic status suggests they can secure alternative accommodation. The counterclaim for...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 557
Parties
Applicant: Kenneth Alan Rees-Gibbs; Applicant: Barbara Rees-Gibbs; Respondent: Zwelibanzi Griffiths Zikhali; Respondent: Thobeka Joyce Zikhali
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2018
Case Number
39681/ 2017
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted; respondents' counterclaim dismissed.
Judges
B A Mashile
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Counterclaim for Damages
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Counterclaim for Damages

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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Alan Rees-Gibbs

Applicant

Barbara Rees-Gibbs

Applicant

Zwelibanzi Griffiths Zikhali

Respondent

Thobeka Joyce Zikhali

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the respondents in lawful occupation of the property.
  2. 2 Are the applicants entitled to evict the respondents under the PIE Act.
  3. 3 Is it just and equitable to grant an eviction order having regard to all relevant circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' right to occupy the property originated from the deed of sale and, after cancellation, from a lease agreement. Both agreements were breached by the respondents, who failed to pay the required amounts. The applicants followed the proper procedures for cancellation, rendering the respondents unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act. The respondents provided insufficient information regarding their personal circumstances and failed to disclose any valid defence or hardship that would make eviction unjust or inequitable. The property is not a sub-economic structure, and the respondents' socio-economic status suggests they can secure alternative accommodation. The counterclaim for...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted; respondents' counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • The respondents and any other person occupying the property under their title or with their permission are ordered to vacate the property within 45 days of this order.
  • If the respondents fail to comply, the Sheriff and/or deputy is authorized to evict the respondents and those occupying through or under them, and may secure the services of a locksmith and the assistance of the South African Police Service if necessary.