Wine and Another v Zondani (2044/08) [2009] ZAECHC 19 (26 February 2009)

Wine and Another v Zondani (2044/08) [2009] ZAECHC 19 (26 February 2009)

The court found that, although the applicants are the registered owners of the property, the respondent has occupied the property since 1991, paid the deposit and bond instalments, and made substantial improvements. She was never notified of the sale in execution or the transfer of ownership and continued to pay until told otherwise by Servcon. The applicants and previous owner failed to make proper enquiries regarding the respondent's occupation and her rights. Applying section 4(7) of the PIE Act and the constitutional requirement to balance ownership rights with the interests of long-term occupiers, the court held that it would not be just and equitable to grant an eviction order. The...

Citation
[2009] ZAECHC 19
Parties
Applicant: Hopewell Mcebisi Wine; Applicant: Noxolo Caroline Wine; Respondent: Vuyelwa Zondani
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2009
Case Number
2044/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
J C H Jansen
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Long Term Occupation, Constitutional Values in Eviction, Ownership Vs Occupation, Ubuntu Principle
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Long Term Occupation Constitutional Values in Eviction Ownership Vs Occupation +1 more

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hopewell Mcebisi Wine

Applicant

Noxolo Caroline Wine

Applicant

Vuyelwa Zondani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondent from the property under section 4(7) of the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's long-term occupation and improvements to the property affect the applicants' right to eviction.
  3. 3 What remedies are available to both parties given the complex history of ownership and occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the applicants are the registered owners of the property, the respondent has occupied the property since 1991, paid the deposit and bond instalments, and made substantial improvements. She was never notified of the sale in execution or the transfer of ownership and continued to pay until told otherwise by Servcon. The applicants and previous owner failed to make proper enquiries regarding the respondent's occupation and her rights. Applying section 4(7) of the PIE Act and the constitutional requirement to balance ownership rights with the interests of long-term occupiers, the court held that it would not be just and equitable to grant an eviction order. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application for eviction is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs is made.