South Africa Case Law

Ludi v Meyer and Others (Reasons) (5356/2023)

Ludi v Meyer and Others (Reasons) (5356/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 13 (24 January 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5356/2023

Judge

Mangena

The court found that the founding affidavit was properly commissioned, as the commissioner was not an attorney and acted only in the course of her employment, in line with statutory regulations and case law. The applicant retained locus standi to institute eviction proceedings, as the cession to the bank only affected the right to claim rentals, not the right to evict unlawful occupiers. The respondents were not occupiers under ESTA, as they were residential tenants and the property was rated as residential, making PIE the applicable legislation. The respondents failed to establish a valid de…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Proceedings
• Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Locus Standi
• Pie Act
• Esta Act

Chokoe and Others v MEC for Human Settlements and Others (031031/2022)

Chokoe and Others v MEC for Human Settlements and Others (031031/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1237 (26 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

031031/2022

Judge

Ford

The court held that the municipality could not demolish or evict without a court order, found spoliation on the papers, and ordered reconstruction of the applicants’ structures.

• Spoliation
• Counter Spoliation
• Section 26 Constitution
• Pie Act
• Unlawful Eviction
• Restoration Of Possession

Mainew CC v Ramashego and Another (2023/023753)

Mainew CC v Ramashego and Another (2023/023753) [2024] ZAGPJHC 527 (30 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/023753

Judge

Senyatsi

The court found that the first respondent's occupation of the property was not unlawful. The evidence established that Centenary Trading 11 CC paid the full purchase price for the property to the late Rasool, who was the sole member of the applicant at the time of sale. The first respondent provided proof of payment and a written sale agreement. She became a member of Centenary with a 60% interest and moved into the property with the late Thipe. The applicant failed to substantiate the existence of a lease agreement and did not provide evidence that the occupation was unlawful. Furthermore, M…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Unlawful Occupation
• Pie Act
• Sale Of Property
• Ownership Dispute

Moholoholo Development (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (57383/2021)

Moholoholo Development (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Another (57383/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 21 (8 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57383/2021

Judge

Marumoagae

The High Court postponed an eviction application sine die pending a review of the tender award and ordered the applicant to pay the postponement costs.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Right To Housing
• Municipal Obligations
• Pie Act
• Costs Of Postponement
• Review Of Tender Award

Msibi v Occupiers of Unit and Another (55038/2022)

Msibi v Occupiers of Unit and Another (55038/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1194 (22 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

55038/2022

Judge

Mncube

The High Court granted leave to appeal against dismissal of an eviction application, finding reasonable prospects of success and a need for certainty on PIE issues.

• Leave To Appeal
• Eviction Proceedings
• Pie Act
• Right To Housing
• Judicial Discretion
• Costs Award

Mayfin (Pty) Ltd v Mthembu and Others (2022/005801)

Mayfin (Pty) Ltd v Mthembu and Others (2022/005801) [2022] ZAGPJHC 977 (6 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/005801

Judge

F Bezuidenhout

The High Court granted a property owner access to clean and repair a hazardous building, while preventing any interference with occupiers’ continued occupation pending eviction proceedings.

• Interdict
• Right Of Access
• Unlawful Occupation
• Pie Act
• Dignity And Privacy
• Eviction Proceedings

Goodfind Properties (Pty) Ltd v Adriaanse and Others (6635 / 2022; 6633 / 2022; 6699 / 2022; 6700 / 2022; 6701 / 2022; 6766 / 2022; 6768 / 2022; 6810 / 2022;6811 / 2022)

Goodfind Properties (Pty) Ltd v Adriaanse and Others (6635 / 2022; 6633 / 2022; 6699 / 2022; 6700 / 2022; 6701 / 2022; 6766 / 2022; 6768 / 2022; 6810 / 2022;6811 / 2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 245 (28 November 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6635 / 2022

Judge

E.D Wille

The applicant established lawful ownership of the property and compliance with all procedural requirements under PIE. The respondents failed to advance any personal circumstances or credible factual basis to justify continued occupation. Their technical defences, including challenges to ownership, authority, and engagement, were unsupported by evidence. The property does not fall under the Social Housing Act, and the applicant is not an organ of state. The court found it just and equitable to grant eviction, allowing respondents a further two months to vacate. Costs were awarded against the r…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Unlawful Occupation
• Pie Act
• Just And Equitable
• Ownership Dispute
• Costs Order

Mavuso and Another v Bolleurs and Others (2022/000833)

Mavuso and Another v Bolleurs and Others (2022/000833) [2022] ZAGPJHC 721 (20 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/000833

Judge

Swanepoel

The court found that the applicants' reliance on rule 49(11) was misplaced, as the rule had been repealed and no automatic suspension of execution applies to rescission applications. The relief sought by the applicants was not supported by the current law, and the court was not asked to stay the eviction order or to develop the common law in this regard. However, the court recognised the constitutional rights of the applicants, particularly the minor child, and the obligation of the State to provide reasonable measures for emergency accommodation. The City of Johannesburg, having been served…

Source excerpt

• Eviction
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Right To Housing
• Children S Rights
• Pie Act
• Suspension Of Execution

Mouton and Others v Du Plessis and Others (4180/2021)

Mouton and Others v Du Plessis and Others (4180/2021) [2022] ZAWCHC 92 (24 March 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4180/2021

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The High Court refused leave to appeal against an eviction order, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no binding sale agreement.

• Eviction
• Pie Act
• Agreement Of Sale
• Specific Performance
• Pie-act
• Specific-performance

Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (Proprietary) Limited v Groenewald and Others (46699/18)

Galloptic Trade and Investments 15 (Proprietary) Limited v Groenewald and Others (46699/18) [2019] ZAGPJHC 274 (8 August 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

46699/18

Judge

Miltz

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents are unlawful occupiers under PIE. The respondents' occupation was with the original permission, knowledge, and consent of the applicant, and the evidence presented by the respondents, including the agreement of sale and power of attorney, was not so far-fetched as to be rejected on the papers. Material disputes of fact existed regarding the nature and termination of the respondents' right to occupy, which could not be resolved in motion proceedings. The applicant did not provide sufficient evidence…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Pie Act
• Esta Act
• Consent To Occupy
• Specific Performance