South Africa Case Law

SB Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited v Leshika (037065/2023)

SB Guarantee Company (RF) Proprietary Limited v Leshika (037065/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 462 (15 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

037065/2023

Judge

S van Aswegen

The respondent's defence of reckless lending fails because the applicant's claim is based on enforcement of an indemnity agreement, not the underlying loan agreement. The respondent provided documentation and confirmation of income, and the affordability assessment was conducted based on her disclosures. The respondent, an educated professional, failed to provide sufficient detail regarding her financial position or negotiations at the time of the loan. The indemnity agreement remains enforceable regardless of any alleged invalidity of the loan. The right to adequate housing under section 26…

Source excerpt

• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Indemnity Agreement
• Reckless Lending
• National Credit Act
• Adequate Housing
• Rule 46a Execution

Harmse and Others v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023)

Harmse and Others v Kamiesberg Local Municipality and Another (CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023) [2024] ZANCHC 36 (12 April 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

CA&R 39/2021 & 1013/2023

Judges

Mamosebo, L Lever

The applicants failed to provide a full and reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing their constitutional challenge and review application, resulting in the refusal of condonation. Notices under the NBSA were properly served on the registered owner, Schreuder, and the applicants were not entitled to such notices. The applicants did not meet the requirements for extension under PAJA, as the delay was inordinate and unexplained, and the interests of justice did not warrant an extension. The challenge to the constitutionality of section 21 of the NBSA was dismissed; the section is not un…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Building Regulations
• Condonation
• Constitutional Invalidity
• Spatial Planning And Land Use Management
• Adequate Housing

Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape & others v Adonisi and Others (522/2021 & 523/2021)

Minister for Transport and Public Works: Western Cape & others v Adonisi and Others (522/2021 & 523/2021) [2024] ZASCA 47; [2024] 3 All SA 49 (SCA); 2024 (4) SA 499 (SCA); 2024 (11) BCLR 1411 (SCA) (12 April 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

522/2021 & 523/2021

Judges

Dambuza, Zondi, Schippers, Molefe, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the principle of constitutional subsidiarity precludes direct reliance on sections 25 and 26 of the Constitution where comprehensive legislation exists to give effect to those rights. The Housing Act and Social Housing Act, together with related statutes, form the primary legal framework for the progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing. The court found no statutory obligation requiring the Province or City to provide social housing at a specific location, such as central Cape Town. The Province and City had implemented policies and program…

Source excerpt

• Subsidiarity Principle
• Adequate Housing
• Social Housing Act
• Government Immovable Asset Management Act
• Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
• Public Participation

Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Thwala and Others (LCC 160/2017B)

Basfour 3327 (Pty) Ltd v Thwala and Others (LCC 160/2017B) [2023] ZALCC 23 (30 June 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 160/2017B

Judge

Flatela

The court found that while the respondents constructed a new dwelling without the applicant's consent and failed to meaningfully engage, their actions were not shown to be malicious or in wilful disregard of the court's authority. The respondents acted under a bona fide belief, supported by Judge Ncube's observations, that they were entitled to improve their living conditions to meet standards of human dignity. The applicant conceded that improvements to existing dwellings could be made without consent if meaningful engagement occurred, but failed to demonstrate that the respondents' conduct…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Adequate Housing
• Human Dignity
• Meaningful Engagement
• Res Judicata

Ryckloff-Beleggings (EDMS) Beperk v Occupiers of ERF 791 of the Farm Randjesfontein and Others (2019/18156)

Ryckloff-Beleggings (EDMS) Beperk v Occupiers of ERF 791 of the Farm Randjesfontein and Others (2019/18156) [2022] ZAGPJHC 735 (5 June 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/18156

Judge

L Windell

The City of Johannesburg repeatedly failed to comply with court orders requiring meaningful engagement and provision of information regarding alternative accommodation for the occupiers, who are informal waste pickers. The City's reports lacked transparency and did not demonstrate genuine efforts to identify suitable land, instead unilaterally limiting options to informal settlements and disregarding the occupiers' livelihood needs. The Johannesburg Property Company, as the City's asset manager, resisted disclosure of its property list, but the court found that such information was essential…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Meaningful Engagement
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Duties
• Contempt Of Court
• Adequate Housing

J.J v A.J (4041/2019)

J.J v A.J (4041/2019) [2020] ZAFSHC 4 (9 January 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4041/2019

Judge

Loubser

The court found that the applicant's half share in the property was the only meaningful asset for creditors, but the respondent had a prior personal right to the property under a court-sanctioned Deed of Settlement. The respondent's ongoing payment of the bond and her status as primary resident, together with her children, meant that sequestration would unjustly prejudice her rights and potentially result in eviction. The court emphasized the constitutional right to adequate housing and the need to consider alternatives such as debt review under the National Credit Act. The applicant failed t…

Source excerpt

• Voluntary Surrender
• Insolvency Act 24 Of 1936
• Debt Review
• Adequate Housing
• Personal Rights In Property

STT Sales (Pty) Ltd v Darrell and Another (21843/11)

STT Sales (Pty) Ltd v Darrell and Another (21843/11) [2014] ZAGPJHC 420 (16 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21843/11

Judge

P L Carstensen

The court found that the first respondent admitted the judgment debt and that there was no factual dispute regarding his indebtedness. The respondent's claim of dual primary residences was rejected as contradictory, and the court held that a person cannot have two primary residences for the purposes of constitutional protection. The respondent resides at another property, so execution against the property in question would not affect his right to adequate housing under section 26 of the Constitution. The requirements for special execution under Rule 46(1)(a)(i) were satisfied, and there was n…

Source excerpt

• Special Execution
• Rule 46
• Adequate Housing
• Constitutional Rights

First Rand Bank Ltd v Govender (718/2013)

First Rand Bank Ltd v Govender (718/2013) [2013] ZAECPEHC 21 (25 April 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

718/2013

Judge

J W Eksteen

The court found that the plaintiff had established the existence and terms of the loan agreement through the signed letter of grant and bond documents, and the certificate of balance was sufficient proof of the amount claimed. The defendant's challenge to the existence of the agreement and the amount claimed was unsupported by any factual allegations. The defendant's application for debt review was incompetent as the debt could not be included in debt review after delivery of the section 129(1)(a) notice. The defendant failed to provide sufficient information regarding his financial circumsta…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Summary Judgment
• Debt Review
• Declaration Of Executability
• Adequate Housing
• Costs Order

Mkhize v Umvoti Municipality and Others (8701/06)

Mkhize v Umvoti Municipality and Others (8701/06) [2010] ZAKZPHC 20; 2010 (4) SA 509 (KZP) ; [2011] 1 All SA 144 (KZP) (21 May 2010)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

8701/06

Judge

Wallis

The court held that the orders in Jaftha v Schoeman, which require judicial oversight for sales in execution under s 66(1)(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, apply only where the property in question is the debtor's home and the constitutional right to adequate housing is engaged. In this case, the plaintiff never lived in the property and owns other immovable property; thus, his right to adequate housing was not affected. The sale in execution was therefore valid, and the broad reading of Jaftha advanced by the plaintiff was rejected. The court emphasized that constitutional remedies such as…

Source excerpt

• Judicial Oversight
• Sale In Execution
• Reading In Remedy
• Separation Of Powers
• Adequate Housing
• Magistrates Courts Act

Darries and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (08/22689)

Darries and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others (08/22689) [2009] ZAGPJHC 6; 2009 (5) SA 284 (GSJ) ; [2009] 3 All SA 277 (GSJ) (3 April 2009)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

08/22689

Judge

Jajbhay

The court held that tenants were not entitled to notice before municipal electricity was disconnected for their landlord’s arrears. The application was dismissed.

• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Municipal Services
• Procedural Fairness
• Bill Of Rights Limitation
• Adequate Housing
• Termination Of Electricity Supply