Wales v Myburgh (2017/16776) [2018] ZAGPJHC 505 (31 July 2018)

Wales v Myburgh (2017/16776) [2018] ZAGPJHC 505 (31 July 2018)

The court found that the respondent's defences, based on alleged oral agreements for donation, compromise, or maintenance, were unsustainable in law due to the Alienation of Land Act, which requires written agreements for the transfer of immovable property. The evidence did not support the existence of a binding contract of maintenance or any real right to occupy the property. The correspondence and affidavits demonstrated, at best, an agreement to agree, not a concluded contract. The respondent's claim for a stay of eviction, pending her action for alternative accommodation, was rejected as she had no real right to retain possession and any personal right could be enforced separately....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 505
Parties
Applicant: Peter James Wales; Respondent: Gudrun Myburgh
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
2017/16776
Procedural Posture
Eviction Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Eviction granted; respondent ordered to vacate property by 30 November 2018. Costs awarded to applicant, except each party to pay own costs for Rule 30 application.
Judges
Z Carelse
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Oral Agreements for Immovable Property, Right of Retention, Contract of Maintenance, Stay of Eviction, Specific Performance
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Oral Agreements for Immovable Property Right of Retention Contract of Maintenance Stay of Eviction Specific Performance

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter James Wales

Applicant

Gudrun Myburgh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Eviction Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent has a valid defence to prevent eviction under PIE.
  2. 2 Whether any oral agreement or contract of maintenance gives the respondent a real right to occupy the property.
  3. 3 Whether the eviction proceedings should be stayed pending the outcome of the respondent's action for alternative accommodation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's defences, based on alleged oral agreements for donation, compromise, or maintenance, were unsustainable in law due to the Alienation of Land Act, which requires written agreements for the transfer of immovable property. The evidence did not support the existence of a binding contract of maintenance or any real right to occupy the property. The correspondence and affidavits demonstrated, at best, an agreement to agree, not a concluded contract. The respondent's claim for a stay of eviction, pending her action for alternative accommodation, was rejected as she had no real right to retain possession and any personal right could be enforced separately....

Court Disposition

Eviction granted; respondent ordered to vacate property by 30 November 2018. Costs awarded to applicant, except each party to pay own costs for Rule 30 application.

Orders

  • The respondent is evicted from the property at Hyde Park.
  • The respondent must vacate the property by 30 November 2018; if not, the Sheriff is authorised to evict her on 7 December 2018.