Sarabjiet v Sathege and Another (40436/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 100 (13 March 2018)

Sarabjiet v Sathege and Another (40436/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 100 (13 March 2018)

The applicant proved ownership of the premises through documentary evidence. The first respondent failed to establish any lawful basis for his occupation and did not provide a meritorious defence. The applicant complied with all statutory requirements for eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act. The respondent's continued occupation prejudices both the applicant and the buyer of the property. The court found it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a shorter notice period justified by the respondent's prior agreement to vacate. Costs were awarded on an attorney and client scale due to the respondent's conduct.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 100
Parties
Applicant: Kevin Krishen Paul Sarabjiet; Respondent: Moses Lesiba Sathege; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2018
Case Number
40436/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.
Judges
L T Modiba
Legal Topics
Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Lease Dispute
Land and Property Eviction Unlawful Occupation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Lease Dispute

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Krishen Paul Sarabjiet

Applicant

Moses Lesiba Sathege

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent has a lawful basis for occupying the property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has complied with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant proved ownership of the premises through documentary evidence. The first respondent failed to establish any lawful basis for his occupation and did not provide a meritorious defence. The applicant complied with all statutory requirements for eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act. The respondent's continued occupation prejudices both the applicant and the buyer of the property. The court found it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a shorter notice period justified by the respondent's prior agreement to vacate. Costs were awarded on an attorney and client scale due to the respondent's conduct.

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all those who occupy the property through him are ordered to vacate the premises by 15 April 2018.
  • If the first respondent or any person occupying the premises through him fails to vacate within 14 days of service of the order, the Sheriff or his lawfully appointed deputy is authorized to evict them on 16 April 2018.