Thanduxolo and Others v Dingizulu and Another (22833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 465 (12 July 2022)

Thanduxolo and Others v Dingizulu and Another (22833/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 465 (12 July 2022)

The court found that the applicants, as registered owners, were entitled to seek eviction of the first respondent, who remained in unlawful occupation. However, the applicants failed to comply with section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, as the notice of set down...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 465
Parties
Applicant: Mali Thanduxolo; Applicant: Guma Unathi; Applicant: Ziyanda Euracia Magida; Applicant: Moipone Mali; Applicant: Mona Lindokuhle Michele; Respondent: Dube Edison Dingizulu; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 July 2022
Case Number
22833/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Postponement; Default Judgment Motion
Outcome
Eviction application removed from the roll with wasted costs to be paid by the applicants; postponement application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Crutchfield
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Default Judgment, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Postponement Application
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Default Judgment Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Postponement Application

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mali Thanduxolo

Applicant

Guma Unathi

Applicant

Ziyanda Euracia Magida

Applicant

Moipone Mali

Applicant

Mona Lindokuhle Michele

Applicant

Dube Edison Dingizulu

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction and Postponement; Default Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an eviction order against the first respondent under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's application for postponement should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants complied with the statutory notice requirements under section 4(2) of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, as registered owners, were entitled to seek eviction of the first respondent, who remained in unlawful occupation. However, the applicants failed to comply with section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, as the notice of set down was delivered less than fourteen days before the hearing and was not served on the second respondent. This procedural defect rendered the eviction application non-compliant with statutory requirements. The first respondent's application for postponement was dismissed due to lack of good cause, absence of a satisfactory explanation for delay, and failure to provide facts...

Court Disposition

Eviction application removed from the roll with wasted costs to be paid by the applicants; postponement application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for the eviction of the first respondent is removed from the roll with the wasted costs to be paid by the applicants.
  • The first respondent's application for a postponement is dismissed with costs.