Van Rensburg and Others v Mutongi and Others (004659/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 641 (15 July 2024)

Van Rensburg and Others v Mutongi and Others (004659/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 641 (15 July 2024)

The court found that the respondents failed to prove that ESTA applies, as the property is used for commercial purposes and the respondents did not provide sufficient evidence of qualifying income or a right to continued occupation. The respondents' reliance on deposit hypothec was unsupported by evidence and undermined by their own breach of lease agreements. The court held that PIE applies and that the respondents are unlawful occupiers. The respondents did not make out a case for homelessness, as at least 27 occupiers earn an income and no evidence was presented of a shortage of available accommodation. The court concluded that it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order, with...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 641
Parties
Applicant: Louis Hendrik Van Rensburg; Applicant: Theonette Groenewald; Applicant: Gesina Johanna Van Rensburg; Respondent: Bengu Mutongi; Respondent: Pesani Mipiwi; Respondent: Erasmus Masendu; Respondent: Kudakwashe Chingezi; Respondent: Lloyd Muradya; Respondent: Charice Tsikwaurere; Respondent: Hlanganana Maposa; Respondent: Gidieon Mphofu; Respondent: Johannes Lupahla; Respondent: Bhekumuzi Maphosa; Respondent: Cynthia Maseko; Respondent: Faith Sibanda; Respondent: Gladys Lebere; Respondent: Lesego Lebere; Respondent: Lloyd Kanyongwa; Respondent: Lovemore Ziwewe; Respondent: Promise Ncuba; Respondent: Mariven Mangwanazi; Respondent: Collect Mthnga; Respondent: Elsie Njaya; Respondent: Musa Mukwada; Respondent: Mmbango Phiri; Respondent: Pumla Naki; Respondent: Thuliswe Shongwe; Respondent: Malibongwe Shongwe; Respondent: Prince Mdhuli; Respondent: Tinwhe Chimeni; Respondent: Trevor Madangweale; Respondent: The Unlawful Invaders of Holding 2, Catherine Road, Mostyn Park; Respondent: The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 July 2024
Case Number
004659/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first to twenty-ninth respondents and all persons occupying through them; each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
F Bezuidenhout
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Eviction Procedure, Jurisdictional Challenge, Deposit Hypothec, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Extension of Security of Tenure Act Eviction Procedure Jurisdictional Challenge Deposit Hypothec Just and Equitable Eviction

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Hendrik Van Rensburg

Applicant

Theonette Groenewald

Applicant

Gesina Johanna Van Rensburg

Applicant

Bengu Mutongi

Respondent

Pesani Mipiwi

Respondent

Erasmus Masendu

Respondent

Kudakwashe Chingezi

Respondent

Lloyd Muradya

Respondent

Charice Tsikwaurere

Respondent

Hlanganana Maposa

Respondent

Gidieon Mphofu

Respondent

Johannes Lupahla

Respondent

Bhekumuzi Maphosa

Respondent

Cynthia Maseko

Respondent

Faith Sibanda

Respondent

Gladys Lebere

Respondent

Lesego Lebere

Respondent

Lloyd Kanyongwa

Respondent

Lovemore Ziwewe

Respondent

Promise Ncuba

Respondent

Mariven Mangwanazi

Respondent

Collect Mthnga

Respondent

Elsie Njaya

Respondent

Musa Mukwada

Respondent

Mmbango Phiri

Respondent

Pumla Naki

Respondent

Thuliswe Shongwe

Respondent

Malibongwe Shongwe

Respondent

Prince Mdhuli

Respondent

Tinwhe Chimeni

Respondent

Trevor Madangweale

Respondent

The Unlawful Invaders of Holding 2, Catherine Road, Mostyn Park

Respondent

The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Eviction Application Under PIE

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) or the Extension of Security of Tenure Act (ESTA) applies to the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have demonstrated a right to occupy the property.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents hold a lien over the property for the security deposit allegedly paid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents failed to prove that ESTA applies, as the property is used for commercial purposes and the respondents did not provide sufficient evidence of qualifying income or a right to continued occupation. The respondents' reliance on deposit hypothec was unsupported by evidence and undermined by their own breach of lease agreements. The court held that PIE applies and that the respondents are unlawful occupiers. The respondents did not make out a case for homelessness, as at least 27 occupiers earn an income and no evidence was presented of a shortage of available accommodation. The court concluded that it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order, with...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first to twenty-ninth respondents and all persons occupying through them; each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The first to twenty-ninth respondents and all persons occupying through or under them are ordered to vacate Holding 2, Catherine Road, Mostyn Park on or before 30 September 2024.
  • Should the first to twenty-ninth respondents and all persons occupying through or under them fail to vacate by 30 September 2024, the sheriff may evict them on or after 1 October 2024.