Wohlkinger and Others v Schoonbee and Others (2022/23317) [2024] ZAGPJHC 297 (26 February 2024)

Wohlkinger and Others v Schoonbee and Others (2022/23317) [2024] ZAGPJHC 297 (26 February 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents had knowledge of the alleged long-term lease at the time of acquiring the property. The lease was not registered against the title deed, and the sale agreement expressly stated that the property was not subject to any lease. The auction pack also clarified that units sold individually were sold without leases. The pending proceedings before the Rental Tribunal and the section 381 enquiry were found to have no bearing on the respondents' right to evict, as neither constituted a valid defence to the rei vindicatio. The court held that there were no genuine disputes of fact regarding the eviction...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 297
Parties
Applicant: Wolfgang Wohlkinger; Applicant: Rui Miguel de Figueiredo N.O obo LWWS Holdings Trust (IT3059/2004); Applicant: Tanya Rocha N.O obo LWWS Holdings Trust (IT3059/2004); Applicant: The Unknown Occupiers of Unit 5 Mont Blanc Heights; Respondent: Conrad Lodewyk Schoonbee N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006); Respondent: Angela Deborah Schoonbee N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006); Respondent: Gerhard Johannes Visser N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 February 2024
Case Number
2022/23317
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order
Outcome
Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
Judges
De Beer
Legal Topics
Eviction, Long Term Lease, Rei Vindicatio, Unlawful Occupation, Leave to Appeal, Burden of Proof
Land and Property Civil Procedure Eviction Long Term Lease Rei Vindicatio Unlawful Occupation Leave to Appeal 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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wolfgang Wohlkinger

Applicant

Rui Miguel de Figueiredo N.O obo LWWS Holdings Trust (IT3059/2004)

Applicant

Tanya Rocha N.O obo LWWS Holdings Trust (IT3059/2004)

Applicant

The Unknown Occupiers of Unit 5 Mont Blanc Heights

Applicant

Conrad Lodewyk Schoonbee N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006)

Respondent

Angela Deborah Schoonbee N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006)

Respondent

Gerhard Johannes Visser N.O obo By Die Groot Doringboom Investment Trust (IT 9894/2006)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a valid defence to eviction based on a long-term lease.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents had knowledge of the alleged long-term lease at the time of acquiring the property.
  3. 3 Whether pending proceedings before the Rental Tribunal or a section 381 enquiry constitute a valid defence to eviction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents had knowledge of the alleged long-term lease at the time of acquiring the property. The lease was not registered against the title deed, and the sale agreement expressly stated that the property was not subject to any lease. The auction pack also clarified that units sold individually were sold without leases. The pending proceedings before the Rental Tribunal and the section 381 enquiry were found to have no bearing on the respondents' right to evict, as neither constituted a valid defence to the rei vindicatio. The court held that there were no genuine disputes of fact regarding the eviction...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants' leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicants, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, are ordered to pay the respondents' costs.