Van Rooyen N.O. and Another v Van Rensburg and Another (52957/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1850 (27 October 2023)

Van Rooyen N.O. and Another v Van Rensburg and Another (52957/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1850 (27 October 2023)

The court found that the written agreement between the applicants and the first respondent was lawfully cancelled after the respondent failed to pay the required deposit and provide a guarantee for the balance of the purchase price, despite written demand. The respondent's reliance on prior negotiations and alleged oral agreements was rejected under the parol evidence rule. The respondent's occupation became unlawful after cancellation, and she was an unlawful occupier under PIE. The applicants discharged their procedural obligations and, after supplementary affidavits, established that no elderly, disabled, or minor children resided on the property, which was used for commercial...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1850
Parties
Applicant: Werner Van Rooyen N.O.; Applicant: Michelle Pay N.O.; Respondent: Hanlie Janse Van Rensburg; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2023
Case Number
52957/2020
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons claiming occupation through her; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.
Judges
HJ De Wet
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Contract Cancellation, Unlawful Occupation, Parol Evidence Rule, Right of Retention, Just and Equitable Eviction
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Contract Cancellation Unlawful Occupation Parol Evidence Rule Right of Retention 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Werner Van Rooyen N.O.

Applicant

Michelle Pay N.O.

Applicant

Hanlie Janse Van Rensburg

Respondent

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written agreement for the sale of immovable property was lawfully cancelled by the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent is in unlawful occupation of the property under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
  3. 3 Whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order against the first respondent and those occupying through her.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the written agreement between the applicants and the first respondent was lawfully cancelled after the respondent failed to pay the required deposit and provide a guarantee for the balance of the purchase price, despite written demand. The respondent's reliance on prior negotiations and alleged oral agreements was rejected under the parol evidence rule. The respondent's occupation became unlawful after cancellation, and she was an unlawful occupier under PIE. The applicants discharged their procedural obligations and, after supplementary affidavits, established that no elderly, disabled, or minor children resided on the property, which was used for commercial...

Court Disposition

Eviction order granted against the first respondent and all persons claiming occupation through her; costs awarded on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • It is declared that the written agreement was lawfully cancelled on 30 July 2020.
  • The first respondent is in unlawful occupation of the property and is an unlawful occupier under PIE.