Rietspruit Crushers (pty) Ltd v Bester (A652/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1152 (3 October 2017)

Rietspruit Crushers (pty) Ltd v Bester (A652/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1152 (3 October 2017)

The respondent's occupation was terminated and he failed to secure a bank guarantee or pay rental as required by the agreement. The correspondence and affidavits do not support the respondent's claim to remain in occupation as security for a debt or improvement lien. The alleged improvements are not substantiated and are outweighed by the arrear rental owed. There is no contractual relationship between the appellant and respondent regarding the claimed debt. The magistrate erred in finding a dispute of fact regarding unlawful occupation. The appellant, as registered owner, is entitled to eviction. No order for security is warranted as the respondent's claim for improvements is less than...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1152
Parties
Appellant: Rietspruit Crushers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Norval Bester
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 October 2017
Case Number
A652/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court, Mbombela
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent and those holding under him are evicted from the property; no order for security for improvements.
Judges
SC Mia, T Maumela
Legal Topics
Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Improvement Lien, Creditors Lien, Pie Act, Arrear Rental
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Unlawful Occupation Improvement Lien Creditors Lien Pie Act Arrear Rental

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rietspruit Crushers (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Norval Bester

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Regional Court, Mbombela

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is an unlawful occupier under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is entitled to remain in occupation based on an improvement lien or a creditor's lien.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant is entitled to an eviction order and whether security for improvements should be ordered.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's occupation was terminated and he failed to secure a bank guarantee or pay rental as required by the agreement. The correspondence and affidavits do not support the respondent's claim to remain in occupation as security for a debt or improvement lien. The alleged improvements are not substantiated and are outweighed by the arrear rental owed. There is no contractual relationship between the appellant and respondent regarding the claimed debt. The magistrate erred in finding a dispute of fact regarding unlawful occupation. The appellant, as registered owner, is entitled to eviction. No order for security is warranted as the respondent's claim for improvements is less than...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent and those holding under him are evicted from the property; no order for security for improvements.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs.
  • The respondent and those holding under him are evicted from Erf 970, White River Extension 5, situated at 8 Jacaranda Street, White River Mpumalanga.