Serame and Another v Motshabi and Another (3605/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 222 (5 September 2022)

Serame and Another v Motshabi and Another (3605/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 222 (5 September 2022)

The court found that no valid written agreement of sale existed between the applicants and the first respondent, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving a valid sale agreement and thus had no right to claim transfer of the property. Her...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 222
Parties
Applicant: Mpolokeng Rosina Serame; Applicant: Molefi Solomon Serame; Respondent: Makwaba Motshabi; Respondent: Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 September 2022
Case Number
3605/2021
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Opposed Application and Counter Application Heard; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Eviction application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Rhyn
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Alienation of Land Act, Oral Sale Agreement, Unlawful Occupation, Enrichment Claim, Eviction Procedure
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Alienation of Land Act Oral Sale Agreement Unlawful Occupation Enrichment Claim Eviction Procedure

Source-derived case record

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpolokeng Rosina Serame

Applicant

Molefi Solomon Serame

Applicant

Makwaba Motshabi

Respondent

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Opposed Application and Counter Application Heard; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a valid sale agreement for the property was concluded in July 2007.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is entitled to claim transfer of the property and whether such claim has prescribed.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent and persons holding under her are in unlawful occupation of the property and whether the applicants are entitled to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that no valid written agreement of sale existed between the applicants and the first respondent, as required by section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving a valid sale agreement and thus had no right to claim transfer of the property. Her occupation was therefore unlawful. The respondent's enrichment claim was unsupported by sufficient evidence regarding the nature, timing, and value of improvements. The repayment claim for R70,000 was also found to have prescribed. The applicants complied with all procedural requirements for eviction under the PIE Act, and the respondent did not provide evidence that eviction would...

Court Disposition

Eviction application granted; counter-application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Motshabi Makwaba and all those occupying under or through her are to vacate Erf [....], B[....], Bloemfontein, Free State Province held under Title Deed T[....] by no later than 1 March 2023.
  • If the persons do not vacate by 1 March 2023, the Sheriff of the High Court is authorised to immediately evict the first respondent and all persons occupying through or under her.