Stad van Kaapstad v Pietersen en Ander (20577/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 161 (17 June 2010)

Stad van Kaapstad v Pietersen en Ander (20577/09) [2010] ZAWCHC 161 (17 June 2010)

The court found that the respondents had sufficient income to pay rent but chose not to do so, and that the property was used for drug-related activities in breach of the lease. The lease was validly cancelled by the municipality, rendering the respondents unlawful occupiers. The court considered the presence of a disabled adult in the household but noted that the family had been aware of the impending eviction for nearly two years and had made no effort to pay arrears or current rent. Given the social impact of drug-related activities in council housing and the municipality's long waiting list of law-abiding tenants, the court held that eviction was justified. However, in light of the...

Citation
[2010] ZAWCHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Stad van Kaapstad; Respondent: D Pietersen; Respondent: Ander
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2010
Case Number
20577/09
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondents to vacate property by 30 September 2010; no order as to costs.
Judges
Gamble
Legal Topics
Eviction, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Breach of Lease, Arrear Rent, Drug Related Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Breach of Lease Arrear Rent Drug Related Eviction

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stad van Kaapstad

Applicant

D Pietersen

Respondent

Ander

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the lease agreement was validly cancelled due to non-payment of rent and breach of its terms.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are in unlawful occupation of the municipal property.
  3. 3 What terms should govern the eviction order, considering the circumstances of the disabled third respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents had sufficient income to pay rent but chose not to do so, and that the property was used for drug-related activities in breach of the lease. The lease was validly cancelled by the municipality, rendering the respondents unlawful occupiers. The court considered the presence of a disabled adult in the household but noted that the family had been aware of the impending eviction for nearly two years and had made no effort to pay arrears or current rent. Given the social impact of drug-related activities in council housing and the municipality's long waiting list of law-abiding tenants, the court held that eviction was justified. However, in light of the...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondents to vacate property by 30 September 2010; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The first to fourth respondents and all persons holding under them are ordered to vacate 12E Storms River Way, Manenberg, Cape Town, Western Cape, including any structures thereon, by 30 September 2010 in terms of section 4(8) of PIE.
  • The sheriff and/or any person appointed by him, including members of the South African Police Service and/or the South African National Defence Force, are authorized to destroy and remove any structures unlawfully occupied by the respondents at the property.