Shibambo and Another v Pitje and Another (77700/2010) [2015] ZAGPPHC 89 (17 February 2015)

Shibambo and Another v Pitje and Another (77700/2010) [2015] ZAGPPHC 89 (17 February 2015)

The court found that the first respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicants had prior knowledge of his sale agreement with the seller. The averments in the answering affidavit were insufficient to establish such knowledge. The applicants were found to be bona fide purchasers, and the transfer of the property into their names was not challenged by any application to set it aside. The procedural requirements for eviction were met, and the respondent's Rule 30A application to strike out portions of the replying affidavit was dismissed as the alleged new facts were either confirmatory or responsive to issues raised by the respondent. Consequently, the applicants were...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Josiah Oupa Shibambo; Applicant: Esther Veleminah Shibambo; Respondent: I R Pitje; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2015
Case Number
77700/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; first respondent and all those holding under him to be ejected from the property; first respondent to pay costs.
Judges
M F Legodi
Legal Topics
Bona Fide Purchaser, Doctrine of Notice, Eviction, Transfer of Ownership
Land and Property Civil Procedure Bona Fide Purchaser Doctrine of Notice Eviction Transfer of Ownership

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Josiah Oupa Shibambo

Applicant

Esther Veleminah Shibambo

Applicant

I R Pitje

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Eviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are bona fide purchasers of the property and entitled to eviction of the first respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent discharged the onus of proving that the applicants had prior knowledge of his sale agreement with the seller.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent is entitled to have the transfer of the property into the applicants' names set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving that the applicants had prior knowledge of his sale agreement with the seller. The averments in the answering affidavit were insufficient to establish such knowledge. The applicants were found to be bona fide purchasers, and the transfer of the property into their names was not challenged by any application to set it aside. The procedural requirements for eviction were met, and the respondent's Rule 30A application to strike out portions of the replying affidavit was dismissed as the alleged new facts were either confirmatory or responsive to issues raised by the respondent. Consequently, the applicants were...

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; first respondent and all those holding under him to be ejected from the property; first respondent to pay costs.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all those holding under him are hereby ejected from the property ERF 4157 MAMELODI TOWNSHIP, REGISTRATION DIVISION JR, PROVINCE OF GAUTENG; Physical address: HOUSE 4157, BLOCK M MAMELODI, PRETORIA.
  • The first respondent is to pay the costs of the application.