South Africa Case Law

City of Cape Town v Commando and Others (1303/2021)

City of Cape Town v Commando and Others (1303/2021) [2023] ZASCA 7; [2023] 2 All SA 23 (SCA); 2023 (4) SA 465 (SCA) (6 February 2023)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1303/2021

Judges

Zondi, Nicholls, Mabindla-Boqwana, Goosen, Siwendu

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the City of Cape Town's emergency housing programme and its implementation were not unconstitutional for failing to provide temporary emergency accommodation in the inner city and surrounds. The Court found no legal basis for a constitutional duty requiring the municipality to provide emergency housing at a specific location. The legislative framework, including the Housing Act and National Housing Code, does not impose such a duty, and the line of cases since Grootboom does not support it. The Court emphasised that the separation of powers prevents judic…

Source excerpt

• Right To Housing
• Emergency Accommodation
• Municipal Duties
• Just And Equitable Orders
• Separation Of Powers
• Gentrification And Eviction

De Beer v Zitlamu Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd and Another (CA120/2020; 10704/2018 & 2915/2020)

De Beer v Zitlamu Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd and Another (CA120/2020; 10704/2018 & 2915/2020) [2022] ZAECMKHC 105 (2 December 2022)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA120/2020

Judges

M Gwala, N G Beshe

The High Court dismissed an appeal against a section 65A payment order, holding that the debtor’s financial position justified monthly payments to judgment creditors.

• Magistrates Court Act Section 65a
• Judgment Debt Enforcement
• Financial Inquiry
• Just And Equitable Orders
• Magistrates-court-act-section-65a
• Judgment-debt-enforcement

Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others (CCT40/15)

Speaker of the National Assembly and Another v Land Access Movement of South Africa and Others (CCT40/15) [2019] ZACC 10; 2019 (5) BCLR 619 (CC); 2019 (6) SA 568 (CC) (19 March 2019)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 40/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Basson, Cameron, Dlodlo, Froneman, Goliath, Khampepe, Mhlantla, Petse, Theron

The Constitutional Court dismissed Parliament’s bid for more time to enact land restitution legislation and ordered a continued freeze on interdicted claims, with a tailored remedy and reporting duties.

• Section 25 Land Restitution
• Public Participation In Legislation
• Interdicts And Remedies
• Processing Of Land Claims
• Separation Of Powers
• Just And Equitable Orders

Isaacs and Others v City of Cape Town and Another (4375/2017)

Isaacs and Others v City of Cape Town and Another (4375/2017) [2017] ZAWCHC 116; [2018] 1 All SA 135 (WCC) (22 September 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4375/2017

Judge

T Masuku

The High Court rescinded urgent eviction and demolition orders, finding the matter should have proceeded under ESTA, not PIE, and that notice was defective.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Language Rights In Procedure
• Just And Equitable Orders

Transnet Ltd v Tebeka and Others (616/2010)

Transnet Ltd v Tebeka and Others (616/2010) [2011] ZAECPEHC 26 (14 June 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

616/2010

Judge

P.W. Tshiki

The court found that the applicant failed to establish that the respondents were unlawful occupiers, as the respondents provided a plausible account that the debt had been settled, and the applicant did not adequately refute this. Even if the respondents were unlawful occupiers, the court held that eviction would not be just and equitable under section 26 of the Constitution and the PIE Act, given the respondents' age, lack of alternative accommodation, and long-term residence. The applicant's founding affidavit was deficient in establishing locus standi and failed to comply with procedural r…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Locus Standi
• Contractual Remedies
• Just And Equitable Orders

Mangaung Local Municipality v Pudumo and Others (3143/09)

Mangaung Local Municipality v Pudumo and Others (3143/09) [2010] ZAFSHC 2 (7 January 2010)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3143/09

Judge

Van Zyl

The court held that the applicant failed to meaningfully engage or attempt mediation with the respondents prior to seeking eviction, as required by constitutional principles and the PIE Act. The applicant's bald assertion of a failed meeting was insufficient, and the respondents' denial was accepted on the Plascon-Evans test. The court found that meaningful engagement and/or mediation is a prerequisite for a just and equitable eviction order. Accordingly, the matter was referred to a mediation process to be initiated and facilitated by the applicant, with the costs of the mediator to be borne…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Meaningful Engagement
• Mediation In Eviction
• Just And Equitable Orders
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act

Van Rensburg NO and another v De Bruin and others (LCC93R/02)

Van Rensburg NO and another v De Bruin and others (LCC93R/02) [2003] ZALCC 1 (27 January 2003)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC93R/02

Judge

FC Bam

The court held that an eviction order cannot be granted against the fifth respondent, who had already vacated the property and did not participate in the settlement agreement or receive legal advice. The Act protects only current occupiers, and there was no evidence of voluntary waiver of rights or consent. The magistrate's order was confirmed for the first to fourth and seventh respondents, as the settlement agreement met the statutory requirements and was just and equitable. The eviction date for the first to fourth respondents was substituted to 31 January 2003, as the original date had pa…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Proceedings
• Waiver Of Rights
• Just And Equitable Orders

Minister of Justice v Ntuli (CCT15/97, CCT17/95)

Minister of Justice v Ntuli (CCT15/97, CCT17/95) [1997] ZACC 7; 1997 (6) BCLR 677; 1997 (3) SA 772 (5 June 1997)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT15/97, CCT17/95

Judges

Chaskalson P, Ackermann, Didcott, Kriegler, Langa, Madala, Mokgoro, O'Regan

The Constitutional Court held that, even assuming it has the power to vary a final order suspending a declaration of invalidity, such power should be exercised sparingly and only for good cause. In this case, the government had almost 18 months to remedy the defect in section 309(4)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act but failed to act with the required urgency. The delays were inexcusable and resulted from departmental neglect, not the complexity of the remedial action. Further suspension would perpetuate the violation of fundamental rights and undermine constitutional values of equality and th…

Source excerpt

• Declaration Of Invalidity
• Suspension Of Invalidity
• Right Of Appeal
• Equality Before Law
• Court Powers
• Just And Equitable Orders