Vajeth and Another v Jongwana and Others (19616/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 393 (28 April 2023)
The applicants proved ownership of the property and compliance with the lease cancellation procedure, including giving the required notice to the respondent to remedy arrears. The respondent failed to pay rent and raised unsubstantiated and contradictory defences, including allegations of illegality and improper notice, which were not supported by evidence. The respondent's reliance on section 5(5) of the Rental Housing Act was misplaced, as there was no express or tacit consent from the applicants for continued occupation. The respondent, a practicing advocate, is not vulnerable and has the means to secure alternative accommodation. The court found it just and equitable to grant the...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 393
- Parties
- Applicant: Riaz Amod Vajeth; Applicant: Sibusisiwe Joy Vajeth; Respondent: Ndyebo Treasure Jongwana; Respondent: All Unlawful Occupiers; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 April 2023
- Case Number
- 19616/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Eviction Application Following Lease Cancellation; Main Application Heard After Interlocutory Disputes.
- Outcome
- Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him; costs awarded on attorney-client scale.
- Judges
- M A Makume
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Proceedings, Lease Cancellation, Rental Housing Act, Just and Equitable Eviction
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Riaz Amod Vajeth
Applicant
Sibusisiwe Joy Vajeth
Applicant
Ndyebo Treasure Jongwana
Respondent
All Unlawful Occupiers
Respondent
City of Johannesburg
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Following Lease Cancellation; Main Application Heard After Interlocutory Disputes.
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the lease agreement was validly cancelled in accordance with its terms and the Rental Housing Act.
- 2 Whether the respondent and those claiming through him are unlawfully occupying the property.
- 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under the circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi
The applicants proved ownership of the property and compliance with the lease cancellation procedure, including giving the required notice to the respondent to remedy arrears. The respondent failed to pay rent and raised unsubstantiated and contradictory defences, including allegations of illegality and improper notice, which were not supported by evidence. The respondent's reliance on section 5(5) of the Rental Housing Act was misplaced, as there was no express or tacit consent from the applicants for continued occupation. The respondent, a practicing advocate, is not vulnerable and has the means to secure alternative accommodation. The court found it just and equitable to grant the...
Court Disposition
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons claiming occupation through him; costs awarded on attorney-client scale.
Orders
- The applicants' Notice of Motion is amended by removing the words 'Unit 2' from prayer 1.
- The first respondent and any person claiming occupation through him is evicted from 34B Rietfontein Road, Edenburg, Rivonia, Sandton.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment