Teme v Dunga and Another (86012/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 117 (16 March 2020)

Teme v Dunga and Another (86012/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 117 (16 March 2020)

The court found that urgency was not self-created, as the applicant acted promptly upon learning the eviction would proceed. The applicant established a prima facie right to interim relief, supported by evidence of a family trust arrangement and vulnerability as a pensioner. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as she would suffer irreparable harm if evicted, while the respondent was aware of possible occupation when purchasing the property. No satisfactory alternative remedy was available, and condonation for non-compliance with Rule 6 was granted. The eviction proceedings in the Magistrate's Court were stayed pending final adjudication of the ownership dispute in the High...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 117
Parties
Applicant: Francina Oumaki Teme; Respondent: Eugene Tshepo Dunga; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 March 2020
Case Number
86012/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief to Stay Eviction Pending Adjudication of Ownership Dispute
Outcome
Application granted. Eviction proceedings stayed pending final adjudication of ownership dispute. Costs to be costs in the cause.
Judges
E van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Stay of Eviction, Interim Relief, Prima Facie Right, Balance of Convenience, Prescription Act, Condonation of Non Compliance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Stay of Eviction Interim Relief Prima Facie Right Balance of Convenience Prescription Act Condonation of Non Compliance

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

Parties

Francina Oumaki Teme

Applicant

Eugene Tshepo Dunga

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Relief to Stay Eviction Pending Adjudication of Ownership Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to stay the eviction proceedings is urgent and not self-created.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie right to interim relief pending the main application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant will suffer irreparable harm if evicted before the main application is decided.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that urgency was not self-created, as the applicant acted promptly upon learning the eviction would proceed. The applicant established a prima facie right to interim relief, supported by evidence of a family trust arrangement and vulnerability as a pensioner. The balance of convenience favoured the applicant, as she would suffer irreparable harm if evicted, while the respondent was aware of possible occupation when purchasing the property. No satisfactory alternative remedy was available, and condonation for non-compliance with Rule 6 was granted. The eviction proceedings in the Magistrate's Court were stayed pending final adjudication of the ownership dispute in the High...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Eviction proceedings stayed pending final adjudication of ownership dispute. Costs to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with Rule 6 of the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned and the application is heard as urgent.
  • The eviction application pending in the Magistrate's Court for the District of Soweto under case number 10214/2019 is stayed, pending final adjudication of the application in this Court under case number 86012/19.