Van Den Berg N.O and Another v Strobos and Others (11030/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 402 (1 March 2013)

Van Den Berg N.O and Another v Strobos and Others (11030/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 402 (1 March 2013)

The court found that the first respondent and her minor children occupy the property in terms of a valid Rule 43 order, which remains binding until set aside or the divorce proceedings are finalized. The trust, although not a party to the Rule 43 proceedings, is represented by its trustees, including the second applicant, who was subject to the order. The applicants failed to prove that the first respondent is in unlawful occupation, as her right to remain derives from both her marriage and the court order. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish that eviction would be just and equitable, especially considering the interests of the minor children and the fact that the household is...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 402
Parties
Applicant: Daniel van den Berg N.O; Applicant: Pieter Jacobus Jooste Strobos N.O; Respondent: Petro Strobos; Respondent: All Other Occupiers; Respondent: The Director of Public Housing, City of Johannesburg – Roodepoort
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 March 2013
Case Number
11030/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Francis
Legal Topics
Eviction, Matrimonial Home Occupation, Rule 43 Interim Relief, Best Interests of Children
Land and Property Family and Children Eviction Matrimonial Home Occupation Rule 43 Interim Relief Best Interests of Children

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel van den Berg N.O

Applicant

Pieter Jacobus Jooste Strobos N.O

Applicant

Petro Strobos

Respondent

All Other Occupiers

Respondent

The Director of Public Housing, City of Johannesburg – Roodepoort

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent and her children are unlawfully occupying the property owned by the trust.
  2. 2 Whether the trust is entitled to evict the first respondent and her children despite the existence of a Rule 43 order.
  3. 3 Whether the relief sought by the applicants is just and equitable considering the interests of the minor children.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent and her minor children occupy the property in terms of a valid Rule 43 order, which remains binding until set aside or the divorce proceedings are finalized. The trust, although not a party to the Rule 43 proceedings, is represented by its trustees, including the second applicant, who was subject to the order. The applicants failed to prove that the first respondent is in unlawful occupation, as her right to remain derives from both her marriage and the court order. Furthermore, the applicants did not establish that eviction would be just and equitable, especially considering the interests of the minor children and the fact that the household is...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.