South Africa Case Law

Ruiters and Another v Arendse and Others (19927/2023)

Ruiters and Another v Arendse and Others (19927/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 36 (10 February 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19927/2023

Judge

Andrews

The court found that, although the applicants had established ownership and unlawful occupation, the requirements of justice and equity under section 4(7) of the PIE Act were not satisfied. The respondents, including a 72-year-old pensioner, minor children, and a disabled adult, would be rendered homeless if evicted. The municipality's emergency housing offer was found to be impractical and unattainable, as the respondents could not secure a site or assemble the structures. The applicants' ex-gratia payment offer did not overcome the hurdle of justice and equity. The court emphasized that evi…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Rights Of Vulnerable Occupiers
• Intestate Succession
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Homelessness Prevention

Rheeder and Another v Engelbrecht and Another (LCC09R2024)

Rheeder and Another v Engelbrecht and Another (LCC09R2024) [2024] ZALCC 28 (5 September 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC09R2024

Judge

Flatela

The Magistrate's order for eviction was set aside because the applicants failed to comply with the mandatory two-stage procedure under ESTA. The notice served on the respondents combined termination of residence and notice of intention to evict, which is impermissible. The Magistrate did not address the substantive and procedural fairness required by section 8, nor did he properly consider compliance with section 11 regarding the just and equitable nature of eviction. The respondents conceded unlawful occupation but raised valid concerns about notice and homelessness. The court held that the…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Just And Equitable Termination
• Procedural Fairness
• Municipal Housing Obligations

Trolese v Henderson and Others (1335/2021)

Trolese v Henderson and Others (1335/2021) [2023] ZANCHC 50 (25 August 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1335/2021

Judge

C C Williams

The High Court retains concurrent jurisdiction to hear the eviction application, as the lease clause does not make the Magistrates Court the exclusive forum. The first respondent is not an unlawful occupier under PIE, as he does not reside at the property, and thus cannot be evicted. The second respondent and her children are unlawful occupiers, having occupied the property without the owner's consent. Although the municipality cannot provide permanent accommodation, it has made reasonable provision for temporary alternative accommodation in a transit camp. The second respondent failed to dem…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Children And Eviction
• Costs Orders

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Nkosi and 91 Others (2020/1348)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Nkosi and 91 Others (2020/1348) [2022] ZAGPJHC 875 (7 November 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/1348

Judge

Mudau

The High Court ordered the eviction and relocation of unlawful occupiers from municipal mining houses to enable a housing development project, finding the move just and equitable under PIE.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Proceedings
• Just And Equitable Test
• Alternative Accommodation
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Meaningful Engagement

Naidu and Another v Moodley and Another (AR440/2019)

Naidu and Another v Moodley and Another (AR440/2019) [2020] ZAKZDHC 65 (22 September 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

AR440/2019

Judges

Madondo, Hadebe

The High Court confirmed an eviction order, holding that the first respondent had locus standi as a person in charge under PIE, but remitted the matter on alternative accommodation.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Locus Standi
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Alternative Accommodation
• Constitutional Property Rights

FW Ortmann Trust and Another v Gumede and Others (LCC58/2017D)

FW Ortmann Trust and Another v Gumede and Others (LCC58/2017D) [2019] ZALCC 22 (9 September 2019)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC58/2017D

Judge

T M Ncube

The court found that the respondents' conduct, including threats, violence, arson, and obstruction of court orders, created a real and imminent danger to persons and property on the farm. The applicants had no other effective remedy, and the hardship to them outweighed any hardship to the respondents, who had alternative accommodation available. The requirements of section 15 of ESTA for urgent interim removal were satisfied. The respondents' conduct justified costs on an attorney and client scale, but not for two counsel. The application was for interim removal pending final eviction proceed…

Source excerpt

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Urgent Eviction
• Interim Relief
• Municipal Housing Obligations

Odvest 182 Pty (Ltd) v Occupiers of Portion 26 (Portion of Portion 3) of Farm Klein Bottelary No 17, Botfontein Road ('The Property') and Others (19695/2012)

Odvest 182 Pty (Ltd) v Occupiers of Portion 26 (Portion of Portion 3) of Farm Klein Bottelary No 17, Botfontein Road ('The Property') and Others (19695/2012) [2016] ZAWCHC 133 (14 October 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

19695/2012

Judge

Rogers

Private landowner eviction granted, but the court ordered the City of Cape Town to provide nearby emergency accommodation before the eviction date.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Emergency Accommodation
• Constitutional Right To Housing

Mathale v Linda and Another (CCT22/15)

Mathale v Linda and Another (CCT22/15) [2015] ZACC 38; 2016 (2) BCLR 226 (CC); 2016 (2) SA 461 (CC) (2 December 2015)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT22/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that execution orders granted under section 78 of the Magistrates' Court Act are appealable if they have the effect of a final judgment, particularly where they result in irreparable harm such as homelessness. The High Court erred by applying the wrong standard, focusing on the interests of justice rather than whether the order was final in effect. The Magistrates' Court failed to properly consider the applicant's prospects of success on appeal, the irreparable harm of eviction, and the questionable standing of the first respondent to seek eviction. The balance o…

Source excerpt

• Right To Housing
• Eviction
• Magistrates Court Act Section 78
• Final Judgment Effect
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Appealability Of Execution Orders

City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and Others (SCA)

City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and Others (SCA) [2012] ZASCA 116; 2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA); 2012 (11) BCLR 1206 (SCA); [2013] 1 All SA 8 (SCA) (14 September 2012)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

735/2011

Judges

Mthiyane DP, Lewis JA, Tshiqi JA, Wallis JA, Petse JA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court's order requiring the sheriff to compile a matrix of occupier information was legally ineffective, as it exceeded the statutory functions of the sheriff and could not be enforced. The City of Johannesburg was properly joined as a necessary party because the eviction would likely trigger its constitutional obligations to provide emergency accommodation. The applicant for eviction bears the onus to place sufficient information before the court to enable a just and equitable determination, but the local authority must also provide a detailed r…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Joinder Of Local Authority
• Onus In Eviction
• Temporary Emergency Accommodation

Ives v Rajah (A205/2011)

Ives v Rajah (A205/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 390; 2012 (2) SA 167 (WCC) (23 September 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A205/2011

Judges

Zondi, Rogers

The court held that, although the appellant is disabled and her circumstances are unfortunate, the statutory framework under PIE excludes the requirement for the municipality to provide alternative accommodation where the property is sold in execution pursuant to a mortgage. The rights and needs of disabled persons must be considered, but the appellant failed to proactively engage with the City or provide sufficient evidence of her disability's impact. The City of Cape Town's report and oral evidence confirmed that no accommodation could be provided, and further engagement would not have chan…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Of Unlawful Occupier
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Municipal Housing Obligations
• Rights Of Disabled Persons
• Constitutional Right To Housing