Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Finbond Mutual Bank v Kgosana and Others (100207/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 96 (30 January 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order under PIE, finding the occupiers’ right to remain had ended and that eviction was just and equitable.
Government Employees Pension Fund v Bonview Trading 88 CC and Others (M81/2023) [2024] ZANWHC 304 (18 December 2024)
The court granted an eviction under PIE, finding the respondents’ occupation unlawful after lease termination and a prior court order, and ordered them to vacate within two months.
First Rand Bank Ltd v Ndamase and Another (024968/24) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1133 (12 November 2024)
The court found that the First Respondent's lease agreement with the previous owner expired and no new lease was concluded with the Applicant. The demand for rental payment did not constitute a valid lease agreement, as such agreements for immovable property must be in writing. The First Respondent remained in occupation without any legal right. The Applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act, including service of notices to both the Respondent and the municipality. The First Respondent did not present any defence in law or evidence that eviction would render him hom…
Source excerpt
Hlophe v Johannesburg Social Housing Company and Others (2024/106288) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1022 (11 October 2024)
High Court granted interim relief staying execution of an eviction order pending a rescission application, finding no wilful default and a prima facie case for rescission.
Lotter N.O and Others v Campbell and Others (LCC19R/2024) [2024] ZALCC 29 (6 September 2024)
Automatic review under ESTA of an eviction order from the magistrates’ court. The Land Claims Court confirmed the order but extended the vacation date.
Madulammoho Housing Association v Mosiuoa and Another (9713/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 301 (20 March 2024)
The court found that the applicant had established unlawful occupation by the first respondent, who failed to pay rent and breached the lease agreement. The respondent's defence of a rent-to-buy arrangement was unsupported by credible evidence or relevant documentation. The documents submitted by the respondent related to other projects and did not confer any right of ownership or entitlement to the unit. The respondent failed to provide sufficient information regarding his household's circumstances, income, or vulnerability to homelessness. The procedural requirements of the PIE Act were met…
Source excerpt
Jacobs N.O v Nakedi and Others (4648/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 12 (30 January 2024)
The court found that the applicant, as liquidator, had locus standi and statutory authority to seek eviction of the first respondent and all persons occupying through him. The respondent’s right to occupy, originally granted by his late father, ceased upon the father’s death and subsequent liquidation of the company. No consent was given by the liquidator for continued occupation. The respondent failed to provide evidence of ongoing lawful occupation or circumstances justifying retention of the property. The procedural requirements of PIE were met, and the respondent’s opposition did not rais…
Source excerpt
T.R.T V C.N.N and Another (903/2022) [2023] ZALMPTHC 12 (28 November 2023)
The High Court granted eviction under PIE, finding the respondent was an unlawful occupier and had alternative accommodation, with 30 days to vacate.
Unlawful Occupiers Occupying 20 Op De Bergen Street, Fairview Johannesburg v Emikon Auctioneering Services and Import and Export (Pty) Ltd and Another (12423/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1145 (4 October 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal against a judgment refusing rescission of an eviction order, citing constitutional issues and prior housing orders.
Makhunzi v Hlazo NO and Others (8797/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 479 (15 May 2023)
The court found there was insufficient evidence that the applicant was given unequivocal and effective notice to attend court on 15 November 2018, and thus could not be said to be in wilful default or to have elected to absent herself. The court further found no evidence that the necessary enquiry required by PIE was conducted before the eviction order was granted. These deficiencies constituted a bona fide defence with prospects of success under common law and justified rescission under Rule 42(1)(a). Although the applicant delayed in bringing the rescission application, her explanation was…
Source excerpt
Explore more
