Ursela v Willy and Others (084085/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 728 (13 August 2024)

Ursela v Willy and Others (084085/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 728 (13 August 2024)

The court found that the applicant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement due to the respondents' failure to pay rental. The respondents remained in occupation unlawfully after cancellation and failed to pay the arrear rental demanded. The respondent's reliance on the Consumer Protection Act and the PIE Act did not prevent eviction, as he was employed and not eligible for municipal housing, and had indicated he would vacate by January 2024. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to both eviction and a money judgment for arrear rental.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 728
Parties
Applicant: Roch Ursela; Respondent: Kalala Willy; Respondent: Kalala Matetsoane Yvonne; Respondent: Shabi Pabalo Gloria Bonita; Respondent: Kabwebe Kamong Grace; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 August 2024
Case Number
084085/2023
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Eviction and money judgment granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
M A Makume
Legal Topics
Eviction, Arrear Rental, Lease Agreement, Consumer Protection Act, Month to Month Tenancy
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Arrear Rental Lease Agreement Consumer Protection Act Month to Month Tenancy

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

Parties

Roch Ursela

Applicant

Kalala Willy

Respondent

Kalala Matetsoane Yvonne

Respondent

Shabi Pabalo Gloria Bonita

Respondent

Kabwebe Kamong Grace

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are unlawfully occupying the applicant's property after termination of the lease agreement.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a money judgment for arrear rental.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was entitled to cancel the lease agreement due to the respondents' failure to pay rental. The respondents remained in occupation unlawfully after cancellation and failed to pay the arrear rental demanded. The respondent's reliance on the Consumer Protection Act and the PIE Act did not prevent eviction, as he was employed and not eligible for municipal housing, and had indicated he would vacate by January 2024. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to both eviction and a money judgment for arrear rental.

Court Disposition

Eviction and money judgment granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The 1st to 4th respondents and all persons occupying through them are ordered to vacate the property at 4[...] B[...] Drive, G[...].
  • The respondents are ordered to pay the applicant R265,496.33 in respect of arrear rental.