South Africa Case Law

Royal Bafokeng Nation v Khunou and Others (M420/16)

Royal Bafokeng Nation v Khunou and Others (M420/16) [2017] ZANWHC 64 (31 August 2017)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

M420/16

Judge

M M Leeuw

The court found that the respondents were not constituted as a traditional council or community as defined by the relevant statutes, and thus lacked authority to allocate residential stands independently of the applicant. The allocation of stands must be done in collaboration with the Royal Bafokeng Administration until the ownership dispute is resolved. The seventh respondents are unlawful occupiers, but the court declined to confirm their eviction due to inadequate service and lack of opportunity to be heard, in line with constitutional and statutory requirements. The local municipality sho…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Procedure
• Customary Land Allocation
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Joinder Of Municipality

Mphoka v Kekana (HCA14/2016)

Mphoka v Kekana (HCA14/2016) [2017] ZALMPPHC 26 (30 August 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCA14/2016

Judges

E M Makgoba, M V Semenya

The appeal was upheld because the Magistrate's Court failed to properly consider whether the eviction was just and equitable as required by section 4(7) of the PIE Act and section 26(3) of the Constitution. The appellant's household included vulnerable persons—an elderly, disabled partner and children—and had occupied the property for over twenty years without alternative accommodation. The Magistrate's Court did not adequately balance the proprietary rights of the respondent against the human rights of the appellant and her family, nor did it consider the specific needs of the vulnerable per…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Housing
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Condonation
• Balancing Proprietary And Human Rights

Occupiers of Erven 87 and 88 Berea v De Wet N.O. and Another (CCT108/16)

Occupiers of Erven 87 and 88 Berea v De Wet N.O. and Another (CCT108/16) [2017] ZACC 18; 2017 (8) BCLR 1015 (CC); 2017 (5) SA 346 (CC) (8 June 2017)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT108/16

Judges

Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Mojapelo, Pretorius, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that a court is not absolved from its constitutional and statutory duties to consider all relevant circumstances in eviction proceedings, even where occupiers purportedly consent to eviction. Consent must be informed, voluntary, and given with full awareness of rights; the applicants' consent was not legally valid as they were uninformed and unrepresented. The High Court erred by failing to conduct the required enquiry and by not joining the City of Johannesburg, despite the risk of homelessness. The eviction order was erroneously granted in the absence of 180 ap…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Proceedings
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Informed Consent

Unlawful Occupiers of ERF [2...] [V...] v Kganyago and Another (A5016/2014)

Unlawful Occupiers of ERF [2...] [V...] v Kganyago and Another (A5016/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 46 (31 March 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5016/2014

Judges

Satchwell, Wepener, Windell

High Court appeal against an eviction order dismissed. The court held the appellants’ leasehold had been lawfully terminated and the municipality need not be joined.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Leasehold Rights
• Sale In Execution
• Rule 17 Non Compliance
• Eviction-proceedings

Ellmore Court (Pty) Ltd v Ngwenya (38097/2012)

Ellmore Court (Pty) Ltd v Ngwenya (38097/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 61 (9 April 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38097/2012

Judge

N F Kgomo

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the respondent's lease had expired and was properly cancelled due to non-payment and persistent refusal to comply with management instructions. The respondent and those occupying through her have no valid lease or right to remain in occupation. The respondent's arguments regarding indigence and the necessity of joining the municipality were unsupported by primary facts and did not trigger constitutional obligations for emergency accommodation. The respondent's conduct, including withholding payment and failing…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Month To Month Lease
• Arrear Rent
• Attorney And Client Costs

Madulamoho Housing Association v Masibi Gaitsewe and Others (35151 /2012)

Madulamoho Housing Association v Masibi Gaitsewe and Others (35151 /2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 49 (11 March 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35151 /2012

Judge

S Mia

Eviction under PIE was postponed sine die pending mediation, disclosure of rental and subsidy information, and involvement of the SHRA and municipality.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Social Housing Act Compliance
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Judicial Discretion In Eviction
• Transparency In Rental Increases

Johannesburg Housing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Unlawful Occupiers of the Newtown Urban Village (GSJ)

Johannesburg Housing Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Unlawful Occupiers of the Newtown Urban Village (GSJ) [2012] ZAGPJHC 230; 2013 (1) SA 583 (GSJ); [2013] 1 All SA 192 (GSJ); 2013 (3) BCLR 337 (GSJ) (15 November 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/30368

Judge

N. P. Willis

The court found that the applicant, as registered owner, satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements under PIE for eviction. The respondents failed to demonstrate any legal right to occupy the property or that eviction would render them homeless. The evidence showed that the occupiers were not indigent and had not made out a case for alternative accommodation. The City of Johannesburg was not a necessary party as no concrete evidence of homelessness was presented. The court held that the determination of 'just and equitable' under PIE is an objective test, allowing for a range of pe…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Housing
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Obligations
• Judicial Discretion
• Joinder Of Municipality

Real People Housing CC v Zamisa and Another (11464/2012)

Real People Housing CC v Zamisa and Another (11464/2012) [2012] ZAGPJHC 280 (31 July 2012)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

11464/2012

Judge

Willis

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that any lease agreement with the respondents was validly cancelled. Proper notice under the PIE Act was served, and the respondents were fully aware of the eviction proceedings, having appeared in court and been represented by counsel. The respondents' defences were vague, contradictory, and unsupported by evidence. The argument that the municipality should have been joined was abandoned, and the court held that there is no absolute requirement for joinder if the municipality is notified. The respondents failed to…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Notice Requirements
• Joinder Of Municipality

Premier of the Province of the Eastern Cape and Another v Mtshelakana and Others (249/07)

Premier of the Province of the Eastern Cape and Another v Mtshelakana and Others (249/07) [2011] ZAECMHC 12; 2011 (5) SA 640 (ECM) (23 June 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

249/07

Judge

Griffiths

The court found that the respondents were in unlawful occupation of government-owned residential flats, as no valid lease agreement or consent existed. The respondents failed to provide evidence that they could not afford alternative accommodation or that the municipality had a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings. The court held that the requirements of PIE were met, and that joinder of the municipality was unnecessary given the respondents' means. The respondents' defence based on an alleged agreement with the Department of Education was rejected due to lack of essential terms…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Constitutional Right To Housing
• Lease Agreement Essentialia

Occupiers, Shulana Court, 11 Hendon Road, Yeoville, Johannesburg v Steele (102/09)

Occupiers, Shulana Court, 11 Hendon Road, Yeoville, Johannesburg v Steele (102/09) [2010] ZASCA 28; 2010 (9) BCLR 911 (SCA) ; [2010] 4 All SA 54 (SCA) (25 March 2010)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

102/09

Judges

MPATI, VAN HEERDEN, MHLANTLA, SHONGWE, THERON

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellants provided a reasonable explanation for their default, having genuinely believed that the Inner City Resources Centre would represent them. The court found that the high court failed to comply with its statutory and constitutional obligations under PIE and the Constitution, as it did not consider all relevant circumstances, including the needs of vulnerable groups and the availability of alternative accommodation. The absence of the municipality as a party further deprived the court of necessary information. The appellants established a bona…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Housing
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Joinder Of Municipality
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Default Judgment