South Africa Case Law

Occupires/Residents of Ramahlodi Park v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1430/2015)

Occupires/Residents of Ramahlodi Park v Minister of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (1430/2015) [2025] ZALMPPHC 79 (25 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

1430/2015

Judge

Mashifane AJ

The court found that the applicants have locus standi as they are directly affected by the eviction order and have demonstrated substantial interest. The delay in bringing the rescission application was justified by the applicants' lack of knowledge of the order until May 2020, ongoing negotiations, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Rule 42(1)(a) applies as the order was granted in the absence of the affected parties and without service of the application for eviction. The original order failed to consider the applicants' circumstances, including their settled occupation and housing st…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Locus Standi
• Condonation
• Eviction Proceedings
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right To Housing

K2012150042 (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Unknown Unlawful Occupiers of ERF 7[...], E[...] Township and Another (21/40484)

K2012150042 (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Unknown Unlawful Occupiers of ERF 7[...], E[...] Township and Another (21/40484) [2025] ZAGPJHC 301 (19 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/40484

Judge

L Putter

The High Court granted an eviction order against unlawful occupiers, with staged vacating dates, demolition authority, and temporary emergency accommodation obligations for the City.

• Eviction
• Temporary Emergency Accommodation
• Right To Housing
• Municipal Obligations
• Unlawful Occupation
• Procedural Fairness

First Rand Bank Limited v Engelbrecht and Another (010183/2022)

First Rand Bank Limited v Engelbrecht and Another (010183/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 250 (2 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

010183/2022

Judge

Tolmay

The court held that the particulars of claim need only set out the cause of action, and the Rule 46A requirements may be satisfied by a separate application or supporting affidavit. The summary judgment and Rule 46A application were properly brought together, and the defendants did not oppose the Rule 46A application. The alleged payment holiday was not substantiated with sufficient detail and did not constitute a valid pactum de non petendo. The section 129 notice was dispatched to the defendants' nominated address, fulfilling statutory requirements. The defendants failed to demonstrate any…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Execution
• Summary Judgment
• Mortgage Foreclosure
• National Credit Act Section 129
• Pactum De Non Petendo
• Right To Housing

Occupiers of 2[...] O[...] D[...] B[...] Street v Emikon Auctioneering Service and Import and Export (Pty) Ltd and Another (A2023/105517)

Occupiers of 2[...] O[...] D[...] B[...] Street v Emikon Auctioneering Service and Import and Export (Pty) Ltd and Another (A2023/105517) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1254 (2 December 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A2023/105517

Judges

Farber, Mudau, Dippenaar

The High Court upheld an appeal and rescinded an eviction judgment after finding the occupiers were not properly served and the order was granted in their absence.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Proper Service Of Process
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Right To Housing
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Ntsekwa and Another (3325/2023)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Ntsekwa and Another (3325/2023) [2024] ZAECMKHC 138; [2025] 1 All SA 395 (ECG); 2025 (3) SA 519 (ECMk) (19 November 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3325/2023

Judge

Zono AJ

The court found that the respondents remedied their default by paying R500,000, which exceeded the arrear amount due under the credit agreement. The credit agreement was not cancelled at the time of payment, and the applicant did not account for the excess payment or quantify legal costs for enforcement. The applicant failed to provide proper Section 129(1) notice to the second respondent and did not establish that the notice reached the first respondent. As Section 129 notice is a condition precedent to instituting proceedings, the application was prematurely and improperly instituted. The c…

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Section 129 Notice
• Remedy Of Default
• Reinstatement Of Credit Agreement
• Special Executability
• Right To Housing

Hlophe v Johannesburg Social Housing Company and Others (2024/106288)

Hlophe v Johannesburg Social Housing Company and Others (2024/106288) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1022 (11 October 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/106288

Judge

R Strydom

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.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Stay Of Execution
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Just And Equitable Test
• Service Of Process
• Right To Housing

Piketberd Sunrise Farm (Pty) Ltd and Another v Menas and Others (LCC18R2024)

Piketberd Sunrise Farm (Pty) Ltd and Another v Menas and Others (LCC18R2024) [2024] ZALCC 34 (7 October 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC18R2024

Judge

Mabasa

On automatic review, the Land Claims Court set aside an eviction order under ESTA and remitted the matter for reconsideration of substantive fairness and mediation.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Procedural Fairness
• Substantive Fairness
• Right To Housing
• Mediation In Eviction

Unlawful Occupiers Of Portion 2 of ERF 813 Rosettenville Situated at 18 Haig Street, Rosettenville and Others v Okoye and Others (2022/43051)

Unlawful Occupiers Of Portion 2 of ERF 813 Rosettenville Situated at 18 Haig Street, Rosettenville and Others v Okoye and Others (2022/43051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 843 (30 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/43051

Judge

N Manoim

Leave to appeal against an eviction order was dismissed because the order already protected qualifying occupiers and allowed time for accommodation processes.

• Eviction Proceedings
• Alternative Accommodation
• Right To Housing
• Mandamus
• Superior Courts Act
• Socio Economic Rights

Naidoo (formerly Padayachee) v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO and Others (1885/2009)

Naidoo (formerly Padayachee) v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd NO and Others (1885/2009) [2024] ZAKZDHC 55 (23 August 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

1885/2009

Judge

G M Harrison

The court found that the applicant's payment of arrears and subsequent conduct of both parties resulted in the reinstatement of the credit agreement, extinguishing the cause of action for the original summons and default judgment. The first respondent's reliance on the 2013 default judgment for execution in 2021 was improper, as the debt had been discharged and the agreement reinstated. The sale in execution and transfer to the second respondent were declared invalid, and the title deed was ordered to be reinstated in the applicant's name. The second respondent, as an innocent purchaser, was…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Reinstatement Of Credit Agreement
• Uniform Rule 46a
• Right To Housing
• Default Judgment
• Transfer And Title Deed

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Choene and Another (4460/2022)

Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd v Choene and Another (4460/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 249 (22 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4460/2022

Judge

Ramdeyal AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 46A(9)(c), (d), and (e), as the sheriff's report was not comprehensive and did not provide the necessary details for the court to reconsider the reserve price. The court emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in protecting the constitutional right to housing and preventing the sale of homes at prices significantly below market value. Setting aside the reserve price without proper information would risk leaving the respondents homeless and liable for the mortgage shortfall, which would be cont…

Source excerpt

• Sale In Execution
• Reserve Price
• Rule 46a
• Right To Housing
• Judicial Oversight
• Mortgage Enforcement