Venpine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nikitaridis and Others (07007/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 290 (18 December 2015)

Venpine Properties (Pty) Ltd v Nikitaridis and Others (07007/2013) [2015] ZAGPJHC 290 (18 December 2015)

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has demonstrated compliance with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. The respondents have been in unlawful occupation since 2012, have not paid any rates, taxes, or rental, and have failed to establish any valid lease or option agreement entitling them to remain. The defences raised by the second respondent are found to be fictitious and unsupported by evidence. The applicant suffers financial prejudice due to the respondents' continued occupation. The respondents have not shown any right to remain, and the application for eviction must succeed.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 290
Parties
Applicant: Venpine Properties (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Anna Margretha Nikitaridis; Respondent: Gerassiimos Nikitaridis; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 December 2015
Case Number
07007/2013
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.
Judges
B Mashile
Legal Topics
Eviction, Unlawful Occupation, Sale in Execution, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Burden of Proof
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Unlawful Occupation Sale in Execution Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Burden of Proof

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Venpine Properties (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Anna Margretha Nikitaridis

Respondent

Gerassiimos Nikitaridis

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to remain in occupation of the property after its sale in execution and transfer to the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents have established any valid lease or option agreement entitling them to remain on the property.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has complied with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act and is entitled to an eviction order.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and has demonstrated compliance with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act. The respondents have been in unlawful occupation since 2012, have not paid any rates, taxes, or rental, and have failed to establish any valid lease or option agreement entitling them to remain. The defences raised by the second respondent are found to be fictitious and unsupported by evidence. The applicant suffers financial prejudice due to the respondents' continued occupation. The respondents have not shown any right to remain, and the application for eviction must succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for eviction granted; respondents ordered to vacate property and pay costs.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are to vacate the property within 30 days of the date of this order.
  • The first and second respondents are to pay the costs of the applicant jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.