South Africa Case Law

Smith v Khumalo and All the Unlawful Occupiers of the Property and Another (47400/21)

Smith v Khumalo and All the Unlawful Occupiers of the Property and Another (47400/21) [2024] ZAGPJHC 492 (10 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

47400/21

Judge

Turner AJ

The court found that the applicant is the lawful owner of the property and has been unlawfully deprived of its use and benefit for an extended period. The respondents have no substantive defence to eviction, having failed to take steps to find alternative accommodation or respect the applicant's rights. The City has acknowledged its obligation to provide emergency accommodation but has no available units and cannot guarantee provision within a reasonable time. Balancing the interests of the elderly, impecunious applicant against those of the occupiers, especially minor children, the court hel…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Right To Property
• Alternative Accommodation
• Best Interests Of Children
• Implementation Of Eviction Orders

Vincemus Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Ponte City v Sindi and Others (26720 /2019)

Vincemus Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a Ponte City v Sindi and Others (26720 /2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 417 (13 September 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26720 /2019

Judge

Nichols

The court found that the applicant lawfully cancelled the respondents' lease agreements, rendering them unlawful occupiers under PIE. The respondents failed to provide sufficient evidence or detail regarding their personal circumstances to justify resisting eviction on the grounds of homelessness. Their opposition was vague and unsupported by primary facts. The court was satisfied that all procedural requirements under PIE were met, and that the applicant's rights as property owner must be respected. The respondents' disruptive conduct was established and weighed against their interests. The…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Right To Property
• Homelessness
• Rental Housing Tribunal

Mkhatshwa and Others v Mkhatshwa and Others (CCT 220/20)

Mkhatshwa and Others v Mkhatshwa and Others (CCT 220/20) [2021] ZACC 15; 2021 (5) SA 447 (CC); 2021 (10) BCLR 1182 (CC) (18 June 2021)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 220/20

Judges

Mogoeng, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mhlantla, Pillay, Theron, Tlaletsi, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, finding that the application bore no reasonable prospects of success. The applicants' allegations of judicial impropriety were unfounded, vexatious, and persisted despite clear refutation by the Judge President. The Biowatch principle did not apply, as the litigation was not a genuine constitutional challenge against the state but rather a private dispute marked by frivolous and vexatious conduct. The applicants' repeated scurrilous remarks against judicial officers justified a punitive costs order on an attorney and client scale to deter such…

Source excerpt

• Anton Piller Order
• Punitive Costs
• Vexatious Litigation
• Biowatch Principle
• Right To Property
• Judicial Independence

P.P.S v T.L.S (A239/2019)

P.P.S v T.L.S (A239/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 90 (2 September 2020)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A239/2019

Judges

Rogers, Henney, Martin

The procedure followed by the magistrate in granting the eviction order was materially unfair. The appellant was not warned that an eviction order was contemplated, was not given an opportunity to obtain legal representation, and was not afforded a fair chance to respond to the evidence or present information regarding his ability to secure alternative accommodation or access to his children. The magistrate failed to consider the impact of the order on the appellant's constitutional rights and did not properly balance the interests of all parties, including the children. The appeal is upheld…

Source excerpt

• Domestic Violence Act
• Eviction Order
• Procedural Fairness
• Right To Housing
• Right To Property

Selemolela and Others v Central Johannesburg College and Others (43831/2019)

Selemolela and Others v Central Johannesburg College and Others (43831/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 535; 2020 (2) SA 567 (GJ) (17 December 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

43831/2019

Judge

M Mabesele

The applicants' right to occupy the residence was contractually linked to their registration as students for the academic year, which ended on 5 December 2019. Upon completion of the academic programme, their entitlement to accommodation and related subsidies ceased. The applicants admitted their obligation to vacate and sought an extension, which was granted until 10 December 2019. After this period, their possession was no longer lawful or protected. The court found that the applicants were not in peaceful possession at the time of dispossession and that their constitutional rights under se…

Source excerpt

• Spoliation
• Student Accommodation
• Right To Property
• Right To Housing

Mandela v Executors Estate Late Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Others (131/17)

Mandela v Executors Estate Late Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela and Others (131/17) [2018] ZASCA 2; [2018] 1 All SA 669 (SCA); 2018 (4) SA 86 (SCA) (19 January 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

131/17

Judges

Shongwe, Swain, Mathopo, Mokgohloa, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a review delayed for nearly 17 years, finding unreasonable delay and severe prejudice, but set aside costs against the Minister.

• Unreasonable Delay
• Condonation
• Customary Marriage
• Right To Property
• Costs Award
• Review Of Administrative Action

Rahube v Rahube and Others (101250/2015)

Rahube v Rahube and Others (101250/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 651; 2018 (1) SA 638 (GP) (26 September 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

101250/2015

Judge

Kollapen

Section 2(1) of the Upgrading of Land Tenure Rights Act 112 of 1991 is unconstitutional to the extent that it provides for the automatic conversion of tenure rights into ownership without notice or an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The legislative scheme perpetuated gender discrimination by excluding women from ownership, as the underlying Proclamation was racist and sexist. The absence of procedural safeguards violated the rights to equality and access to courts under sections 9 and 34 of the Constitution. The declaration of invalidity is made retrospective to 27 April 1994, b…

Source excerpt

• Gender Discrimination
• Automatic Conversion Of Tenure
• Right To Property
• Right To Equality
• Access To Courts
• Retrospective Invalidity

Baron and Others v Claytile (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC21R/2014, MCC2179/2013)

Baron and Others v Claytile (Pty) Ltd and Another (LCC21R/2014, MCC2179/2013) [2016] ZALCC 27; 2017 (4) SA 180 (LCC) (23 March 2016)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC21R/2014, MCC2179/2013

Judges

Y S Meer, Z Carelse

The Land Claims Court held that lack of alternative accommodation did not bar eviction from private land under ESTA and dismissed the appeal.

• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Eviction
• Right To Property
• Right To Housing
• Just And Equitable
• Alternative Accommodation

Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another (CCT 99/13)

Cool Ideas 1186 CC v Hubbard and Another (CCT 99/13) [2014] ZACC 16; 2014 (4) SA 474 (CC); 2014 (8) BCLR 869 (CC) (5 June 2014)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 99/13

Judges

Moseneke, Skweyiya, Cameron, Dambuza, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Majiedt, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that an unregistered home builder could not enforce payment or have the arbitration award made a court order.

• Housing Consumers Protection Measures Act
• Arbitration Award Enforcement
• Unregistered Home Builder
• Access To Courts
• Right To Property
• Statutory Illegality

eThekwini Municipality and Others v Haffejee NO and Others, Haffejee NO and Others v eThekwini Municipality and Others (9845/2006, 7098/2008)

eThekwini Municipality and Others v Haffejee NO and Others, Haffejee NO and Others v eThekwini Municipality and Others (9845/2006, 7098/2008) [2009] ZAKZDHC 76; 2010 (6) BCLR 578 (KZD); [2010] 2 All SA 358 (KZD) (14 December 2009)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

9845/2006, 7098/2008

Judge

Theron

The court found that the municipality had substantially complied with the requirements of the Local Authorities Ordinance and the Expropriation Act in giving notice to the trust and inviting objections. The fact that notice was sent to the trust's registered address and received by a trustee was sufficient, and no prejudice was shown. The court rejected the trustees' argument that the Expropriation Act is unconstitutional for failing to require pre-determination of compensation, holding that section 25 of the Constitution does not impose such a requirement. The statutory scheme allows for com…

Source excerpt

• Expropriation Act
• Notice Requirements
• Just And Equitable Compensation
• Right To Property
• Procedural Fairness
• Eviction