South Africa Case Law

Purple Blok Projects (Pty) Ltd v Vumazonke and Others (13785/2024)

Purple Blok Projects (Pty) Ltd v Vumazonke and Others (13785/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 424 (13 December 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13785/2024

Judge

Van den Berg AJ

The applicant is the registered owner of the property and the respondents have no valid lease agreement or enforceable right of pre-emption against the applicant. The respondents defaulted on rental payments, refused to negotiate a new lease, and failed to take action against the previous owner regarding their alleged right of first refusal. The respondents were given ample opportunity to secure legal representation and present their case, but repeatedly delayed proceedings without bona fide grounds. The court finds the respondents are in unlawful occupation and that it is just and equitable…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie
• Rei Vindicatio
• Right Of Pre Emption
• Lease Termination
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Costs Award

Redefine Properties Ltd and Others v Chauke and Others (2023/094317)

Redefine Properties Ltd and Others v Chauke and Others (2023/094317) [2024] ZAGPJHC 736 (13 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/094317

Judge

Snyckers

The court found that ESTA does not apply to the property or the respondents. The property is encircled by townships and falls within the definition of 'township' under municipal by-laws and land use schemes. The respondents failed to provide evidence of income below the prescribed threshold or to exclude the mining purpose, which disqualifies them as 'occupiers' under ESTA. Their occupation is unlawful, as any entitlement to remain ended with the termination of their employment, and no agreement for continued occupation exists. The respondents' denials of illegal mining are bald and unsupport…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Application Of Esta
• Unlawful Occupation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Interdict Against Illegal Mining

Sethunya Family Trust and Another v Occupiers of Erven 139 Berea and Another (20/31579)

Sethunya Family Trust and Another v Occupiers of Erven 139 Berea and Another (20/31579) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1208 (23 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

20/31579

Judge

Mahon

The court found that the applicants are entitled to an eviction order as the occupiers have no legal right to remain and their occupation is unlawful under PIE. However, eviction cannot be granted unless it is just and equitable, which requires the City to provide temporary emergency accommodation to those occupiers who will be rendered homeless. The City's report was found to be insufficiently detailed and its claim that three years are needed to procure accommodation was unsupported. The court held that four months is a reasonable period for the City to comply, referencing Blue Moonlight. T…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Under Pie
• Right To Housing
• Municipal Obligations
• Income Threshold For Emergency Accommodation
• Child Support Grant Exclusion

Petersen v Gqosha and Another (1574/2022)

Petersen v Gqosha and Another (1574/2022) [2023] ZAECELLC 8 (25 April 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

1574/2022

Judge

JGA Laing

The court found that the first respondent's occupation of the property was originally based on a verbal agreement with Mr Kriel as security for a loan. However, the debt underlying this arrangement had prescribed, extinguishing any right to continued occupation. The first respondent did not have a valid lien or pledge, as he had not expended money on the property nor was the property a movable asset subject to pledge. The previous application was dismissed on the basis of lis pendens and did not determine the merits of unlawful occupation, so res judicata did not apply. The applicants substan…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie
• Lien And Pledge
• Prescription Of Debt
• Rule 46a Execution
• Res Judicata
• Unlawful Occupation

Plaatjies v Meintjies and Another (A81/2022; 787/2020)

Plaatjies v Meintjies and Another (A81/2022; 787/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 185 (19 September 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A81/2022; 787/2020

Judges

Van Zyl, Fortuin

High Court appeal in a PIE eviction matter. The court held the respondent lacked locus standi when proceedings began, and the eviction order was set aside.

• Eviction Under Pie
• Locus Standi
• Notice Of Termination
• Just And Equitable Order
• Personal Circumstances
• Right Of Habitation

MEC, Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, Eastern Cape Province v Pretorius and Another (CA 09/2022)

MEC, Department of Public Works and Infrastructure, Eastern Cape Province v Pretorius and Another (CA 09/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 17 (26 July 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

CA 09/2022

Judges

Laing, Stretch, Ah-Shene

The High Court upheld an eviction application, finding the lease terminated, PIE complied with, and the respondent’s claimed improvement lien unproven.

• Eviction Under Pie
• Termination Of Lease
• Improvement Lien
• Jurisdiction Clauses
• Locus Standi
• Municipal Report Requirement

Real Time Investments 214 CC v Van Straaten and Others (31548/20)

Real Time Investments 214 CC v Van Straaten and Others (31548/20) [2021] ZAGPPHC 891 (28 December 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

31548/20

Judge

Tlhapi

The High Court dismissed an attempt to cancel a property sale after transfer and evict the purchaser, finding the buyer had paid the full price to the seller’s conveyancer.

• Eviction Under Pie
• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Voetstoots Clause
• Material Breach
• Conveyancer Mandate
• Retention Of Purchase Price

Elmo-York N.O v Van Dyk and Another (67219/2019)

Elmo-York N.O v Van Dyk and Another (67219/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 570 (22 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

67219/2019

Judge

GW Girdwood

The court found that the first respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving a right to possession of the property. The covering mortgage bond and unsigned deed of sale did not constitute a valid deed of alienation under section 2(1) of the Alienation of Land Act, as they were not signed by both parties and did not contain all material terms. The respondent's allegations regarding COVID-19 related hardship and lack of alternative accommodation were unsubstantiated and lacked supporting evidence. The requirements of PIE were satisfied, and no valid defence to eviction was raised. The cour…

Source excerpt

• Alienation Of Land Act
• Eviction Under Pie
• Vindicatory Claim
• Formalities Of Sale
• Just And Equitable Eviction

National Savings and Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Chimaliro and Others (26598/2017)

National Savings and Investments (Proprietary) Ltd v Chimaliro and Others (26598/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 176 (24 May 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26598/2017

Judge

Maier-Frawley AJ

The High Court held that the occupants’ lease had ended by effluxion of time, found no tacit relocation, and granted PIE eviction with eight weeks to vacate.

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Under Pie
• Lease Termination
• Tacit Relocation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Unlawful-occupation

Afrikaanse Christelike Vroue Vereniging van Robertson and Another v Folscher and Another (23256/17)

Afrikaanse Christelike Vroue Vereniging van Robertson and Another v Folscher and Another (23256/17) [2018] ZAWCHC 138 (29 October 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

23256/17

Judges

Henney, Cloete

The High Court reviewed and set aside a magistrate’s indefinite postponement of an eviction application and ordered Swart’s eviction pending a related High Court action.

• Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Under Pie
• Specific Performance
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Magistrates-court-jurisdiction