South Africa Case Law

Communicare NPC v Matunzi and Others (Appeal) (A285/2024)

Communicare NPC v Matunzi and Others (Appeal) (A285/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 264 (23 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A285/2024

Judges

Francis, Pangarker

The appeal succeeded because the magistrate erred in finding that the property was social housing stock subject to the Social Housing Act and SHRA oversight. The evidence established that the property was privately owned and unsubsidised, and thus outside the regulatory ambit of the SHRA. The magistrate's reliance on the title deed as proof of public funding was misplaced, and neither the respondents nor the SHRA witnesses provided evidence that the property was institutionally subsidised. The magistrate further erred by extending the SHRA's mandate to private stock and by upholding points in…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Social Housing Act Interpretation
• Points In Limine
• Regulatory Jurisdiction
• Due Process In Eviction

Du Toit N.O and Others v Gill and Others (22788/2024)

Du Toit N.O and Others v Gill and Others (22788/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 312 (2 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22788/2024

Judge

B.J. Vaughan

The court found that, although it was generally bound by the evidence before it in the original eviction application, the new information presented by the respondents regarding the severity of the health condition of Mrs Gill's mother and the risk of homelessness warranted further inquiry. The court acknowledged that another court could reasonably find that it had not sufficiently interrogated the personal circumstances of the occupiers or obtained a necessary report from the City of Cape Town regarding alternative accommodation. As a result, there were reasonable prospects that another court…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Just And Equitable Order
• Risk Of Homelessness
• Municipal Obligations
• Access To Housing
• Self Represented Litigants

Abrahams and Others v De Wet (Appeal) (A249/2024)

Abrahams and Others v De Wet (Appeal) (A249/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 187 (30 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A249/2024

Judges

P. S. Van Zyl, R. Allie

The High Court dismissed an appeal against an eviction order, holding that the appellants failed to prove a valid enrichment lien or lawful possession.

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Enrichment Lien
• Urban Lease
• Retention Rights
• Municipal Valuation
• Costs Award

City of Cape Town v Hussain and Others (Appeal) (A268/2024)

City of Cape Town v Hussain and Others (Appeal) (A268/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 171 (17 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A268/2024

Judges

Lekhuleni, Ralarala

The court held that the postponement order issued by the magistrate is purely interlocutory and does not meet the requirements for appealability under section 83 of the Magistrates' Court Act or the Zweni test. The order does not finally determine any rights, is susceptible to variation, and does not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed in the eviction application. The interests of justice do not justify entertaining an appeal against such an order, as piecemeal litigation is discouraged. The alternative argument for review was rejected as it was not properly raised and th…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Meaningful Engagement
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Magistrates Court Procedure

Dihlabeng Local Municipality v Khumalo and Another (2706/2024)

Dihlabeng Local Municipality v Khumalo and Another (2706/2024) [2024] ZAFSHC 398 (19 December 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2706/2024

Judge

Hefer AJ

The court found that the respondents are unlawful occupiers under the PIE Act, as they occupy the property without the express or tacit consent of the registered owner, the municipality. The respondents' version of acquiring occupation through a councillor and municipal official was accepted as fact but did not confer legal authority, as only the municipal council can allocate or sell municipal land. The court considered the duration of occupation, the manner in which occupation was effected, and the respondents' investment in the property. The applicant failed to act promptly to prevent the…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Municipal Land Management
• Building Regulations Compliance
• Demolition Order
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Trusler v Auralitr Led Lamps and Others (2023/02223)

Trusler v Auralitr Led Lamps and Others (2023/02223) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1117 (1 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/02223

Judge

Esterhuizen

The court found that the lease agreement between the Applicant and the First Respondent expired and was not renewed, resulting in unlawful occupation. The Fifth Respondent, who continued to reside on the property, failed to pay rental and utilities, with substantial arrears accumulating over several years. The Applicant provided proper notice to vacate and complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act. The Fifth Respondent's defences—alleged indefinite agreement, lack of notice, and inability to find alternative accommodation—were unsupported by evidence and did not constitute v…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Lease Agreement Termination
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Unlawful Occupation
• Attorney And Client Costs

Kaprivi Investment Corridor CC v Msibi and Others (2022/027250)

Kaprivi Investment Corridor CC v Msibi and Others (2022/027250) [2024] ZAGPJHC 563 (13 June 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/027250

Judge

Maenetje AJ

The applicant is confirmed as the person in charge of the property under the PIE Act, having entered into lease agreements with the respondents and exercised legal authority over occupation. The cancellation of the lease agreements is valid, as the respondents breached their obligations and failed to remedy after notice. However, the applicant failed to provide the necessary facts regarding the personal circumstances of the occupiers, alternative accommodation, and other statutory factors required by the PIE Act for eviction. The court cannot grant an eviction order without conducting the man…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Lease Cancellation
• Locus Standi
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Zulu N.O v Mbazo and Another (D11353//21)

Zulu N.O v Mbazo and Another (D11353//21) [2024] ZAKZDHC 32 (24 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D11353//21

Judge

Hlatshwayo AJ

The High Court granted an eviction under PIE, holding that the estate representative had locus standi, res judicata did not apply, and eviction was just and equitable.

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Locus Standi
• Res Judicata
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Estate Administration
• Eviction-under-pie-act

Communicare NPC v Khonzaphi and Another (6683/2023)

Communicare NPC v Khonzaphi and Another (6683/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 355 (21 May 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6683/2023

Judge

Van den Berg

The court found that the applicant lawfully terminated the lease agreement after the first respondent failed to pay rent and other charges, and that the respondent is in unlawful occupation. The PIE Act requirements were met, including proper notice and service. The respondent's financial difficulties and family circumstances were considered, as well as the City's housing report confirming she would be rendered homeless if evicted. The court balanced the applicant's rights as property owner against the respondent's right to housing, finding that a four-month suspension of the eviction order w…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Lease Termination
• Just And Equitable Remedy
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Costs Order
• Municipal Obligations

Minister of Defence v Khosis Community and Others (2248/2019)

Minister of Defence v Khosis Community and Others (2248/2019) [2024] ZANCHC 34 (5 April 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2248/2019

Judge

Lever

The court found that the applicant is entitled to an eviction order against the first and second respondents. The 1993 eviction application is regarded as abandoned and does not bar the present proceedings. The respondents did not acquire the land by acquisitive prescription, as their occupation began in 1978 and does not meet the statutory period. The applicant established ownership and termination of consent, satisfying the requirements under PIE. ESTA does not apply because any consent was terminated by the 1993 application. The procedural objections raised by the respondents, including se…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Acquisitive Prescription
• Joinder Of Parties
• Compensation For Land Claims
• Jurisdiction Under Esta
• Lis Alibi Pendens