Symes NO v Du Preez en Andere (30976/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 801 (6 September 2016)

Symes NO v Du Preez en Andere (30976/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 801 (6 September 2016)

The court found that the applicant had lawfully cancelled the sale agreement due to the first respondent's failure to provide the required bank guarantee within the stipulated 20 calendar days. The respondents' argument that the period should be calculated as court days was rejected, as the auction was not an execution sale and the sale conditions clearly stipulated calendar days. The first respondent's subsequent communications indicated acceptance of the applicant's cancellation, thereby terminating the agreement. As a result, the respondents had no legal right to occupy the property, and their continued occupation was unlawful under the PIE Act. The court agreed with the applicant that...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 801
Parties
Applicant: M E Symes N.O.; Respondent: S J Du Preez; Respondent: Z P Hazelhurst; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2016
Case Number
30976/2015
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Order
Outcome
Eviction order granted in favour of the applicant; respondents to vacate the property.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Eviction Proceedings, Pie Act, Contract Cancellation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Unlawful Occupation Eviction Proceedings Pie Act Contract Cancellation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M E Symes N.O.

Applicant

S J Du Preez

Respondent

Z P Hazelhurst

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents have any legal right to occupy the property after cancellation of the sale agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant lawfully cancelled the sale agreement due to the respondents' failure to provide the required guarantee.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents are unlawfully occupying the property under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had lawfully cancelled the sale agreement due to the first respondent's failure to provide the required bank guarantee within the stipulated 20 calendar days. The respondents' argument that the period should be calculated as court days was rejected, as the auction was not an execution sale and the sale conditions clearly stipulated calendar days. The first respondent's subsequent communications indicated acceptance of the applicant's cancellation, thereby terminating the agreement. As a result, the respondents had no legal right to occupy the property, and their continued occupation was unlawful under the PIE Act. The court agreed with the applicant that...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted in favour of the applicant; respondents to vacate the property.

Orders

  • The respondents are ordered to vacate the property known as Erf [...] Faerie Glen, Pretoria.
  • The respondents' occupation of the property is declared unlawful under the PIE Act.