Wine and Another v Zondani (2044/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 12 (27 February 2009)

Wine and Another v Zondani (2044/08) [2009] ZAECPEHC 12 (27 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, entered into a sale agreement with Standard Bank, and made substantial improvements. She was never informed of the sale in execution or subsequent transfers and continued to make payments until advised otherwise. Applying section 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act and the principles articulated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, the court held that eviction would not be just and equitable in the circumstances. The applicants and previous owners...

Citation
[2009] ZAECPEHC 12
Parties
Applicant: Hopewell Mcebisi Wine; Applicant: Noxolo Caroline Wine; Respondent: Vuyelwa Zondani
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2009
Case Number
2044/08
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Eviction Under PIE
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, Sale in Execution, Ownership Vs Occupation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Long Term Occupation Sale in Execution Ownership Vs Occupation

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 6
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondent from the property under section 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's long-term occupation and circumstances justify refusal of eviction despite applicants' registered ownership.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants, as registered owners, are entitled to an eviction order given the respondent's history and improvements to the property.

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, entered into a sale agreement with Standard Bank, and made substantial improvements. She was never informed of the sale in execution or subsequent transfers and continued to make payments until advised otherwise. Applying section 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act and the principles articulated in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers, the court held that eviction would not be just and equitable in the circumstances. The applicants and previous owners...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

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