Ucon Projects v Scheepers and Others (65657/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 290 (11 October 2013)

Ucon Projects v Scheepers and Others (65657/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 290 (11 October 2013)

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to an eviction order against the fourth respondent, as no person is identified and the citation of 'occupiers' is inappropriate where the applicant knows the identity of the party against whom relief is sought. Granting such an order would undermine the procedural safeguards in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, which requires proper notice and identification of the occupier. Furthermore, the existence of pending spoliation proceedings initiated by Mr Bryant, who is not cited in his personal capacity in this matter, means the court should not decide possessory rights between the applicant and Mr...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 290
Parties
Applicant: Ucon Projects; Respondent: Scheepers CJ; Respondent: Third Respondent (unnamed company under provisional liquidation); Respondent: Second Respondent (former security guard); Respondent: Fourth Respondent (The Occupiers)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 October 2013
Case Number
65657/12
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Supplementary Affidavit; Consideration of Provisional Liquidation and Spoliation Proceedings
Outcome
Application against the fourth respondent dismissed; application against the third respondent postponed; costs of postponement to be costs in the cause.
Judges
Hassim A AJ
Legal Topics
Rei Vindicatio, Eviction Proceedings, Unlawful Occupation, Spoliation, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act
Land and Property Civil Procedure Rei Vindicatio Eviction Proceedings Unlawful Occupation Spoliation Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ucon Projects

Applicant

Scheepers CJ

Respondent

Third Respondent (unnamed company under provisional liquidation)

Respondent

Second Respondent (former security guard)

Respondent

Fourth Respondent (The Occupiers)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction; Supplementary Affidavit; Consideration of Provisional Liquidation and Spoliation Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the fourth respondent, cited as 'the occupiers'.
  2. 2 Whether relief can be granted against unnamed parties when the applicant is aware of the identity of the occupier.
  3. 3 Whether the pending spoliation proceedings affect the relief sought in this application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicant is not entitled to an eviction order against the fourth respondent, as no person is identified and the citation of 'occupiers' is inappropriate where the applicant knows the identity of the party against whom relief is sought. Granting such an order would undermine the procedural safeguards in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, which requires proper notice and identification of the occupier. Furthermore, the existence of pending spoliation proceedings initiated by Mr Bryant, who is not cited in his personal capacity in this matter, means the court should not decide possessory rights between the applicant and Mr...

Court Disposition

Application against the fourth respondent dismissed; application against the third respondent postponed; costs of postponement to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application against the fourth respondent is dismissed.
  • The application in respect of the third respondent is postponed.