Tsatsa and Others v Retque 400 CC and Another (26988/2020; 339272/202) [2020] ZAGPJHC 409 (30 November 2020)

Tsatsa and Others v Retque 400 CC and Another (26988/2020; 339272/202) [2020] ZAGPJHC 409 (30 November 2020)

The court found that the applicants were present when the eviction order was granted and had the opportunity to raise their concerns, specifically regarding their deposit. The order was not granted in error or in their absence, and there was no ambiguity or patent error. The applicants failed to disclose their personal circumstances despite being given multiple opportunities, and their conduct was deemed a ploy to sustain their argument. The facts of Berea v De Wet N.O. were distinguished, as there was no lack of mandate or representation in the present case. The applicants had previously agreed to vacate the property in a settlement before the Rental Housing Tribunal, and the respondents...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 409
Parties
Applicant: Tsatsa Veronica; Applicant: Khumalo Khayelihle; Applicant: All the Occupiers of Rennite Mansion 52 Plein Street; Respondent: Retque 400 CC; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 2020
Case Number
26988/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for rescission of the eviction order is dismissed with costs.
Judges
M A Makume
Legal Topics
Eviction, Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42, Settlement Agreement, Default Judgment
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Rescission of Judgment Rule 42 Settlement Agreement Default Judgment

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

Parties

Tsatsa Veronica

Applicant

Khumalo Khayelihle

Applicant

All the Occupiers of Rennite Mansion 52 Plein Street

Applicant

Retque 400 CC

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order granted by Molahlehi J on 9 September 2020 should be rescinded under Rule 42(1) or common law grounds.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants were denied a fair opportunity to present their case due to lack of legal representation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have a bona fide defence to the eviction application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were present when the eviction order was granted and had the opportunity to raise their concerns, specifically regarding their deposit. The order was not granted in error or in their absence, and there was no ambiguity or patent error. The applicants failed to disclose their personal circumstances despite being given multiple opportunities, and their conduct was deemed a ploy to sustain their argument. The facts of Berea v De Wet N.O. were distinguished, as there was no lack of mandate or representation in the present case. The applicants had previously agreed to vacate the property in a settlement before the Rental Housing Tribunal, and the respondents...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of the eviction order is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order/judgment by Molahlehi J dated 9 September 2020 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the taxed party and party costs of the application jointly and severally, one paying the other to be absolved.