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