Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v March and Others (18/44135) [2021] ZAGPJHC 672 (18 August 2021)

Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v March and Others (18/44135) [2021] ZAGPJHC 672 (18 August 2021)

The court found that, although the applicant's conduct was at times unfair and manipulative, the respondents had not paid any rent since December 2017 and had lived rent-free for over three years. The reasons advanced for non-payment were unconvincing and did not justify continued occupation. The respondents failed to demonstrate destitution or an inability to secure alternative accommodation, and the municipality was not obliged to provide emergency housing. The requirements of the PIE Act were satisfied, and eviction was just and equitable. However, considering the respondents' long occupation, the applicant's conduct, and the impact of the Covid-19 disaster, the court stayed the...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 672
Parties
Applicant: Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Vuyo March; Respondent: Pascalinha Mamonare; Respondent: George Baloyi; Respondent: Isaac Maeyane; Respondent: Patrick Ramasedi; Respondent: Busisiwe Dinga; Respondent: Tumisang Peme; Respondent: Ntombikayise Masuku; Respondent: Ntokozo Masuku; Respondent: Maria Segona; Respondent: Zodwa Ramasedi; Respondent: Kgaboitsile Thlalatsi; Respondent: Kokestso Mathibe; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: The Unlawful Occupiers of the Old Hamburg Hotel
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2021
Case Number
18/44135
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the 1st to 13th and 15th respondents and all persons residing on the property, with execution stayed until 1 July 2022. No costs order against respondents.
Judges
B M Slon
Legal Topics
Eviction Under Pie Act, Just and Equitable Relief, Municipal Services, Personal Circumstances Affidavits, Stay of Eviction, Costs Orders
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Under Pie Act Just and Equitable Relief Municipal Services Personal Circumstances Affidavits Stay of Eviction Costs Orders

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Vuyo March

Respondent

Pascalinha Mamonare

Respondent

George Baloyi

Respondent

Isaac Maeyane

Respondent

Patrick Ramasedi

Respondent

Busisiwe Dinga

Respondent

Tumisang Peme

Respondent

Ntombikayise Masuku

Respondent

Ntokozo Masuku

Respondent

Maria Segona

Respondent

Zodwa Ramasedi

Respondent

Kgaboitsile Thlalatsi

Respondent

Kokestso Mathibe

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

The Unlawful Occupiers of the Old Hamburg Hotel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under section 4 of the PIE Act in the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents are entitled to protection or alternative accommodation from the municipality.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's conduct in relation to the eviction was fair and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicant's conduct was at times unfair and manipulative, the respondents had not paid any rent since December 2017 and had lived rent-free for over three years. The reasons advanced for non-payment were unconvincing and did not justify continued occupation. The respondents failed to demonstrate destitution or an inability to secure alternative accommodation, and the municipality was not obliged to provide emergency housing. The requirements of the PIE Act were satisfied, and eviction was just and equitable. However, considering the respondents' long occupation, the applicant's conduct, and the impact of the Covid-19 disaster, the court stayed the...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the 1st to 13th and 15th respondents and all persons residing on the property, with execution stayed until 1 July 2022. No costs order against respondents.

Orders

  • The 1st to 13th and 15th respondents, and all persons residing on the Old Hamburg Hotel property, are evicted, subject to the following: respondents must vacate by 30 June 2022; execution of the eviction order is stayed until 1 July 2022.
  • If any respondent or other person fails to vacate by 30 June 2022, the Sheriff is authorized to evict such persons from the property after 1 July 2022, with lawful assistance as required.