Phenyane and Others v RNS Investments Proprietary Limited and Others (82060/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 988 (2 December 2016)

Phenyane and Others v RNS Investments Proprietary Limited and Others (82060/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 988 (2 December 2016)

The court found that the applicant, Mathole, lacked locus standi as he was not a lawful tenant and had failed to pay rent. The consent order of 11 December 2015 was valid and binding, and the eviction process complied with the requirements of the PIE Act. The Rental Housing Tribunal did not have jurisdiction after the termination of the lease agreements. Mathole's application was procedurally defective, lacked merit, and constituted an abuse of the court process. His disparaging and unfounded statements about the respondents, their attorneys, and members of the judiciary warranted an interdict restraining further publication. The application was dismissed with punitive costs, and the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 988
Parties
Applicant: MA Phenyane and 179 Others; Applicant: Ephraim Mathole; Respondent: RNS Investments Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Nazbro Properties Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Sheriff Pretoria West
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 December 2016
Case Number
82060/15
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing Urgent Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; counter-application granted.
Judges
P.M. Mabuse
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Urgent Interdict, Abuse of Process, Rental Housing Tribunal Jurisdiction, Attorney and Client Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Proceedings Urgent Interdict Abuse of Process Rental Housing Tribunal Jurisdiction Attorney and Client Costs

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MA Phenyane and 179 Others

Applicant

Ephraim Mathole

Applicant

RNS Investments Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Nazbro Properties Proprietary Limited

Respondent

Sheriff Pretoria West

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing Urgent Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to urgent relief to stay eviction and interdict respondents from evicting tenants.
  2. 2 Whether the consent order of 11 December 2015 was unconstitutional or invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the Rental Housing Tribunal had jurisdiction over the dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, Mathole, lacked locus standi as he was not a lawful tenant and had failed to pay rent. The consent order of 11 December 2015 was valid and binding, and the eviction process complied with the requirements of the PIE Act. The Rental Housing Tribunal did not have jurisdiction after the termination of the lease agreements. Mathole's application was procedurally defective, lacked merit, and constituted an abuse of the court process. His disparaging and unfounded statements about the respondents, their attorneys, and members of the judiciary warranted an interdict restraining further publication. The application was dismissed with punitive costs, and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale; counter-application granted.

Orders

  • The forms and service as prescribed by the uniform rules of court are dispensed with and the matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of rule 6(12).
  • The 179th applicant is interdicted and restrained from making any utterances, transmitting any email or publishing any statements regarding the first and second respondents or their legal representatives that allege criminal activity, dispute ownership of RNS House, or impugn the ethics or professionalism of their...