Teaca Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v John Banza and Others (2017/36741) [2018] ZAGPJHC 72 (9 February 2018)

Teaca Properties (Pty) Ltd and Others v John Banza and Others (2017/36741) [2018] ZAGPJHC 72 (9 February 2018)

The court found that the respondents entered into a binding settlement agreement, made an order of court, which compromised all prior defences regarding ownership and building condition. The respondents failed to comply with the consent order, resorted to unlawful self-help through a rent boycott, and engaged in intimidation and threats of violence. The inspection in loco disproved allegations of poor building conditions. The respondents did not demonstrate any valid reason for non-performance under the consent order, nor did they establish a case for homelessness or vulnerability requiring intervention by the City. The court held that enforcing compliance with the consent order and...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Teaca Properties (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Jika Properties (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Myso Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Dalem Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: NDF15 Investment and Trading; Applicant: Kenwyn Flats (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Indluplace Properties Ltd; Applicant: G and N Tarn Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Erf [...] Windsor (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Helen Joy Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Earls Den (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Karavas (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: John Banza and 167 Others; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2018
Case Number
2017/36741
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Eviction Application Following Breach of Consent Order
Outcome
Eviction granted against the 70 respondents listed in Annexure X for breach of the consent order.
Judges
Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Pie, Urgent Interdict, Consent Order Enforcement, Rent Boycott, Rule of Law, Settlement Agreement
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Eviction Under Pie Urgent Interdict Consent Order Enforcement Rent Boycott Rule of Law +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teaca Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jika Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Myso Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Dalem Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

NDF15 Investment and Trading

Applicant

Kenwyn Flats (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Indluplace Properties Ltd

Applicant

G and N Tarn Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Erf [...] Windsor (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Helen Joy Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Earls Den (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Karavas (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

John Banza and 167 Others

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Eviction Application Following Breach of Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the 70 respondents for breach of the consent order.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' defences are valid after the settlement agreement was made an order of court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct amounts to impermissible self-help in defiance of court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents entered into a binding settlement agreement, made an order of court, which compromised all prior defences regarding ownership and building condition. The respondents failed to comply with the consent order, resorted to unlawful self-help through a rent boycott, and engaged in intimidation and threats of violence. The inspection in loco disproved allegations of poor building conditions. The respondents did not demonstrate any valid reason for non-performance under the consent order, nor did they establish a case for homelessness or vulnerability requiring intervention by the City. The court held that enforcing compliance with the consent order and...

Court Disposition

Eviction granted against the 70 respondents listed in Annexure X for breach of the consent order.

Orders

  • The respondents listed in Annexure X are evicted from the Windsor properties described in the order.
  • The respondents are ordered to vacate the property on or before 9 April 2018.