Starbuck N.O and Another v Nape N.O and Others (2024/019458) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1192 (18 November 2024)

Starbuck N.O and Another v Nape N.O and Others (2024/019458) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1192 (18 November 2024)

The court found that the applicants, as provisional trustees, had complied with all formal requirements for eviction, including service of notice under section 4(2) of the PIE Act. The respondents were given an opportunity to oppose and to file answering affidavits but failed to do so. The withdrawal of their attorneys occurred after the deadline for affidavits and did not justify a postponement. The court held that the grounds for appeal lacked merit, as the respondents were not deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the third respondent.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1192
Parties
Applicant: Conrad Alexander Starbuck N.O; Applicant: Matlooane John Mophethe N.O.; Respondent: Moya Candlish Nape N.O.; Respondent: Mmamochabo Pertunia Kgohloane N.O.; Respondent: Moya Candlish Nape; Respondent: Mmamochabo Pertunia Kgohloane; Respondent: The Occupants of Erf 7[...] Irene Ext 10 Township; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 November 2024
Case Number
2024/019458
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Grant of Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs awarded against the third respondent.
Judges
O Mooki
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Leave to Appeal, Unlawful Occupation, Costs Order
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Leave to Appeal Unlawful Occupation Costs Order

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Conrad Alexander Starbuck N.O

Applicant

Matlooane John Mophethe N.O.

Applicant

Moya Candlish Nape N.O.

Respondent

Mmamochabo Pertunia Kgohloane N.O.

Respondent

Moya Candlish Nape

Respondent

Mmamochabo Pertunia Kgohloane

Respondent

The Occupants of Erf 7[...] Irene Ext 10 Township

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Grant of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the eviction order.
  2. 2 Whether the refusal of a postponement and the lack of legal representation for the respondents constituted grounds for appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents were afforded a fair opportunity to deliver their answering affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as provisional trustees, had complied with all formal requirements for eviction, including service of notice under section 4(2) of the PIE Act. The respondents were given an opportunity to oppose and to file answering affidavits but failed to do so. The withdrawal of their attorneys occurred after the deadline for affidavits and did not justify a postponement. The court held that the grounds for appeal lacked merit, as the respondents were not deprived of a fair opportunity to present their case. The application for leave to appeal was therefore dismissed, and costs were awarded against the third respondent.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs awarded against the third respondent.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The third respondent is ordered to pay costs.