Steyn v Hasse and Another (A93/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 120; 2015 (4) SA 405 (WCC) (15 August 2014)

Steyn v Hasse and Another (A93/2013) [2014] ZAWCHC 120; 2015 (4) SA 405 (WCC) (15 August 2014)

The court found that the appellant’s occupation of the property was unlawful under the PIE Act, as the first respondent had properly withdrawn his consent and given adequate notice to vacate. There was no evidence of a reciprocal duty of support or a universal partnership arising from the parties’ cohabitation, nor any enforceable agreement granting the appellant a right to occupy the property for ten years or to receive alternative accommodation. The appellant’s claims regarding her health and inability to secure alternative accommodation were unsupported by medical evidence and contradicted by her financial contributions after the relationship ended. The court held that all material...

Citation
[2014] ZAWCHC 120
Parties
Appellant: Astrid Steyn; Respondent: Friedrich Helmut Hasse; Respondent: The Sheriff for the Magistrate’s Court for the District of Somerset West
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2014
Case Number
A93/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate’s Court Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.
Judges
Goliath, Schippers
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Cohabitation Rights, Universal Partnership, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Cohabitation Rights Universal Partnership Just and Equitable 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Astrid Steyn

Appellant

Friedrich Helmut Hasse

Respondent

The Sheriff for the Magistrate’s Court for the District of Somerset West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate’s Court Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant’s occupation of the property was unlawful under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  2. 2 Whether a reciprocal duty of support or universal partnership existed between the parties due to their cohabitation.
  3. 3 Whether it was just and equitable to order the eviction of the appellant given her personal circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant’s occupation of the property was unlawful under the PIE Act, as the first respondent had properly withdrawn his consent and given adequate notice to vacate. There was no evidence of a reciprocal duty of support or a universal partnership arising from the parties’ cohabitation, nor any enforceable agreement granting the appellant a right to occupy the property for ten years or to receive alternative accommodation. The appellant’s claims regarding her health and inability to secure alternative accommodation were unsupported by medical evidence and contradicted by her financial contributions after the relationship ended. The court held that all material...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; eviction order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appellant’s application for condonation is granted, with costs to be borne by the appellant.
  • The appeal is dismissed.