TACHMO CC v Mphuti N and Another (A39/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 146 (31 May 2022)

TACHMO CC v Mphuti N and Another (A39/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 146 (31 May 2022)

The court found that the appellant is the lawful owner of the property, as evidenced by the title deed and corroborated by municipal records. The respondent's 'blue card' did not meet the requirements for a valid municipal allocation and was likely fraudulently issued. The respondent is therefore an unlawful occupier under PIE. The magistrate erred in failing to recognize the appellant's ownership and in not addressing the settlement agreement, which indicated the respondent's acknowledgment of her unlawful occupation. The respondent did not provide evidence of having no alternative accommodation or that eviction would render her homeless. She is gainfully employed and capable of securing...

Citation
[2022] ZAFSHC 146
Parties
Appellant: TACHMO CC; Respondent: Ntswaki Mphuti; Respondent: Dihlabeng Local Municipality
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2022
Case Number
A39/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Dismissal of Eviction Application
Outcome
Appeal upheld; eviction order granted with conditions.
Judges
C Reinders, S Naidoo, A K Ramlal
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Proof of Ownership, Just and Equitable Eviction, Title Deed Evidence, Alternative Accommodation, Constitutional Property Rights
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Proof of Ownership Just and Equitable Eviction Title Deed Evidence Alternative Accommodation +1 more

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TACHMO CC

Appellant

Ntswaki Mphuti

Respondent

Dihlabeng Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Dismissal of Eviction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant is the lawful owner of the property in question.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is an unlawful occupier under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an order for eviction under the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant is the lawful owner of the property, as evidenced by the title deed and corroborated by municipal records. The respondent's 'blue card' did not meet the requirements for a valid municipal allocation and was likely fraudulently issued. The respondent is therefore an unlawful occupier under PIE. The magistrate erred in failing to recognize the appellant's ownership and in not addressing the settlement agreement, which indicated the respondent's acknowledgment of her unlawful occupation. The respondent did not provide evidence of having no alternative accommodation or that eviction would render her homeless. She is gainfully employed and capable of securing...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; eviction order granted with conditions.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds and the magistrate's order dismissing the application is set aside.
  • The application for eviction succeeds.