Sturdy v Pirezenthal and Another (2147/15) [2018] ZAECPEHC 13 (27 February 2018)

Sturdy v Pirezenthal and Another (2147/15) [2018] ZAECPEHC 13 (27 February 2018)

The applicant, as usufructuary, withdrew consent for the first respondent's occupation, rendering him and those occupying through him unlawful occupiers under PIE. The court found that the requirements of section 4 of PIE were met, including proper service and consideration of all relevant circumstances. The first respondent failed to provide sufficient factual basis to demonstrate inability to secure alternative accommodation, and the tenants did not establish vulnerability or financial incapacity. No valid defence to eviction was raised. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a three-month period for the first respondent and tenants to vacate,...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Barbara Jane Sturdy; Respondent: Maurice William Pirezenthal; Respondent: Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2018
Case Number
2147/15
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons occupying through him, with a three-month period to vacate.
Judges
G.G. Goosen
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Usufruct Rights, Just and Equitable Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Onus of Proof
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Usufruct Rights Just and Equitable Eviction Unlawful Occupation Onus of Proof

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

Parties

Barbara Jane Sturdy

Applicant

Maurice William Pirezenthal

Respondent

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent and those occupying through him are unlawful occupiers under PIE.
  2. 2 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order in the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of section 4 of PIE have been met, including consideration of alternative accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant, as usufructuary, withdrew consent for the first respondent's occupation, rendering him and those occupying through him unlawful occupiers under PIE. The court found that the requirements of section 4 of PIE were met, including proper service and consideration of all relevant circumstances. The first respondent failed to provide sufficient factual basis to demonstrate inability to secure alternative accommodation, and the tenants did not establish vulnerability or financial incapacity. No valid defence to eviction was raised. The court held that it was just and equitable to grant the eviction order, with a three-month period for the first respondent and tenants to vacate,...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons occupying through him, with a three-month period to vacate.

Orders

  • The First Respondent and any person occupying the property through him must vacate Erf [...], Cotswold, Port Elizabeth, on or before 30 May 2018.
  • If the First Respondent or any person occupying through him fails to vacate by the stated date, the Sheriff is authorised to evict them, with assistance from the South African Police Service if necessary.