Strauss v Kruger and Others (15723/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 97 (11 March 2020)

Strauss v Kruger and Others (15723/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 97 (11 March 2020)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has lawfully terminated any agreement permitting the first respondent's occupation. The first respondent's reliance on her employment contract, shareholder status, and the Samewerkingsooreenkoms does not confer a legal right to occupy the property. The lease agreement referenced pertains to the business premises, not the residential property in dispute. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including service of notice. The first respondent is not indigent, has no dependants, and is able to secure alternative accommodation. There is no valid defence to her continued occupation. Balancing the...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 97
Parties
Plaintiff: Ryno Jacobus Strauss; Respondent: Anna Sophia Kruger; Respondent: All the unknown occupiers of the remaining extent of Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 84) of the Farm Tweefontein 413, Registration Division J.R. Province of Gauteng, also known as Plot 101 Tweefontein, Bapsfontein; Respondent: Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2020
Case Number
15723/19
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those occupying by virtue of her occupation.
Judges
P D Phahlane
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Procedure, Just and Equitable Relief, Ownership and Title
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation Eviction Procedure Just and Equitable Relief Ownership and Title

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ryno Jacobus Strauss

Plaintiff

Anna Sophia Kruger

Respondent

All the unknown occupiers of the remaining extent of Portion 101 (a portion of Portion 84) of the Farm Tweefontein 413, Registration Division J.R. Province of Gauteng, also known as Plot 101 Tweefontein, Bapsfontein

Respondent

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Ekhuruleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to evict the first respondent from Plot 101, Tweefontein, Bapsfontein.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's occupation is lawful under any contract, employment agreement, or shareholder status.
  3. 3 Whether the procedural and substantive requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) have been met.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has lawfully terminated any agreement permitting the first respondent's occupation. The first respondent's reliance on her employment contract, shareholder status, and the Samewerkingsooreenkoms does not confer a legal right to occupy the property. The lease agreement referenced pertains to the business premises, not the residential property in dispute. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including service of notice. The first respondent is not indigent, has no dependants, and is able to secure alternative accommodation. There is no valid defence to her continued occupation. Balancing the...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all those occupying by virtue of her occupation.

Orders

  • The first respondent and all those occupying the property by virtue of her occupation are evicted from Plot 101, Tweefontein, Bapsfontein, also known as Remaining Extent of Portion 101, a portion of portion 84, Registration Division J.R. Province of Gauteng.
  • The first respondent and all those occupying by virtue of her occupation are ordered to vacate the property within 15 days from the date of service of this order.