Van Coller and Another v Machele and Others (96124/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 191 (18 May 2017)

Van Coller and Another v Machele and Others (96124/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 191 (18 May 2017)

The court found that the applicants were not the registered owners of the property at the time the eviction application was launched, as confirmed by documentary evidence. The PIE Act requires that only the registered owner or a person in charge may bring eviction proceedings, and in this case, the applicants did not meet either definition at the relevant time. The attempt to supplement their case in reply was impermissible, as the founding affidavit must contain all material facts. Furthermore, the applicants failed to properly address the rights of the tenant, Peter Hudson, whose lease was protected by the principle of 'huur gaat voor koop' and was not terminated or properly joined. The...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 191
Parties
Applicant: Sean Van Coller; Applicant: Nicole Anna Van Coller; Respondent: Kagiso Machele; Respondent: Zoleka Elizabeth Machele; Respondent: All occupiers of No 27 2nd Road Hyde Park Extension 42, Sandton; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2017
Case Number
96124/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Application dismissed for lack of locus standi.
Judges
S C Mia
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Locus Standi, Eviction Proceedings, Huur Gaat Voor Koop
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Locus Standi Eviction Proceedings Huur Gaat Voor Koop

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Van Coller

Applicant

Nicole Anna Van Coller

Applicant

Kagiso Machele

Respondent

Zoleka Elizabeth Machele

Respondent

All occupiers of No 27 2nd Road Hyde Park Extension 42, Sandton

Respondent

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants had locus standi to bring the eviction application.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents were unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act.
  3. 3 Whether proper notice was given to the tenant, Peter Hudson.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants were not the registered owners of the property at the time the eviction application was launched, as confirmed by documentary evidence. The PIE Act requires that only the registered owner or a person in charge may bring eviction proceedings, and in this case, the applicants did not meet either definition at the relevant time. The attempt to supplement their case in reply was impermissible, as the founding affidavit must contain all material facts. Furthermore, the applicants failed to properly address the rights of the tenant, Peter Hudson, whose lease was protected by the principle of 'huur gaat voor koop' and was not terminated or properly joined. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for lack of locus standi.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs of this application on a party and party scale.