South Africa Case Law

J & R Hartman Boerdery CC and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (HCAA 31/2023)

J & R Hartman Boerdery CC and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (HCAA 31/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 13 (22 January 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCAA 31/2023

Judges

M G Phatudi, G Diamond, M Bresler

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence that their constitutional rights under Section 26(3) were implicated. The court found that the procedural requirements of Uniform Rule 46A were adequately considered by the court a quo, and the appellants did not demonstrate that they fell within the vulnerable category protected by the rule. The respondent's locus standi was established, and the outstanding balances were substantiated by certificates of balance. The appellants' denials were deemed unsubstantiated and insufficient to raise a bona fide disput…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Special Executability
• Locus Standi
• Certificate Of Balance
• Section 26 Constitution
• Judicial Oversight

Bayer Trust v Bayer and Others (17673/2024)

Bayer Trust v Bayer and Others (17673/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 404 (2 December 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17673/2024

Judge

Lekhuleni

The court found that although a trust lacks legal personality and should ordinarily litigate through its trustees, the applicant's failure to cite the trustees by name was not fatal because the Letters of Authority attached to the founding affidavit identified all trustees and their authority. The court rejected the non-joinder argument, finding no evidence that the first respondent's children currently occupy the property or have a direct and substantial legal interest. Regarding lis pendens, the court held that the pending ownership action (case 21620/2014) raises genuine disputes of fact a…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Standing Of Trusts
• Joinder Of Parties
• Lis Pendens
• Right Of Habitatio
• Section 26 Constitution

Emakhazeni Local Municipality v Ngubeni and Another (4716/2024)

Emakhazeni Local Municipality v Ngubeni and Another (4716/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 64 (28 November 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4716/2024

Judge

Vele

The application for eviction failed because the applicant did not comply with statutory and constitutional requirements. The applicant did not provide adequate notice to all unlawful occupiers as required by section 4(2) of PIE, nor did it approach the court for directions regarding service on unknown occupiers. As an organ of state, the applicant was required to comply with section 6(1) of PIE and demonstrate consideration of alternative accommodation and the interests of vulnerable groups, which it failed to do. The sale agreement relied upon by the first respondent was not validly amended…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Proceedings
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Service Of Process
• Lis Alibi Pendens
• Section 26 Constitution
• Alternative Accommodation

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

B.T.T v A.T and Others (1053/2020)

B.T.T v A.T and Others (1053/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1152 (11 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

1053/2020

Judge

Oosthuizen-Senekal CSP

The applicant is the registered owner of the property, having acquired ownership lawfully under ULTRA. The respondents have occupied the property for over six months without the applicant's consent and have not paid rent or contributed to municipal or bond payments. The respondents' claim of fraud in the transfer is unsupported by evidence, and no appeal was lodged against the conversion. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, taking into account the respondents' personal circumstances, including their vulnerability and risk of homelessness. The Cit…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Section 26 Constitution
• Municipal Obligations
• Condonation Of Late Filing

Thys v S (246/24)

Thys v S (246/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 324; 2025 (1) SACR 243 (WCC) (21 October 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

246/24

Judges

Montzinger, Henney

The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for trespassing were not in accordance with justice. The appellant was an ESTA occupier, having resided on the farm all his life and not earning above the statutory income threshold. The magistrate failed to conduct a proper inquiry into the appellant's status under ESTA and allowed the criminal process to be used as a mechanism for eviction, contrary to constitutional and statutory protections. The Trespass Act cannot be used to evict an ESTA occupier, and criminal proceedings must yield to the procedural safeguards of ESTA and the Constit…

Source excerpt

• Trespass Act
• Esta Occupier Definition
• Eviction Procedure
• Section 26 Constitution
• Criminal Procedure Act
• Unlawful Eviction

Sawindu 08 RF (Pty) Ltd v Machedi and Another (2021/1525)

Sawindu 08 RF (Pty) Ltd v Machedi and Another (2021/1525) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1094 (8 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/1525

Judge

A Friedman

The court held that, although the respondents failed to comply with the procedural requirements for filing an answering affidavit, strict adherence to procedure should not override the constitutional right to housing. The court found that the respondents should be afforded a final opportunity to file a condonation application to motivate for the admission of their answering affidavit. If the respondents fail to do so within the prescribed period, the applicant may proceed to enroll the default judgment application on the unopposed roll, and costs will be taxed on an opposed basis. The court e…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Condonation Application
• Primary Residence Executability
• Rule 46a
• Section 26 Constitution

22 Fricker Road (Pty) Ltd and Another v Those Units listed in Annexure A to Notice of Motion and Others (2023/085256)

22 Fricker Road (Pty) Ltd and Another v Those Units listed in Annexure A to Notice of Motion and Others (2023/085256) [2024] ZAGPJHC 805 (12 August 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/085256

Judge

Maenetje

The court finds that there is a rational basis for another court to conclude that the lease agreements may create reciprocal obligations for supply and payment of electricity and water, and that non-payment may entitle the applicants, subject to court authorisation, to terminate or restrict such supply. It is arguable that such termination or restriction does not necessarily constitute indirect eviction, and that the existence of pending eviction proceedings under the PIE Act does not preclude the relief sought. The issues raised are novel, of public importance, and bear prospects of success…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Proceedings
• Indirect Eviction
• Lease Agreements
• Water Services Regulation
• Section 26 Constitution
• Alternative Remedy

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Steenkamp N.O and Others (1204/2021)

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa v Steenkamp N.O and Others (1204/2021) [2024] ZANCHC 53 (31 May 2024)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1204/2021

Judge

M J Ramaepadi

The court held that Uniform Rule 46A applies to execution against immovable property owned by a trust if the property is used as a primary residence by natural persons, such as trust beneficiaries or employees. The decisive factor is the use of the property for residential purposes, not the legal persona of the owner. The applicant failed to comply with Rule 46A, and the application to declare the properties executable cannot proceed without judicial oversight. The respondents' force majeure defence was not seriously pursued and did not bar the money claim. However, both the monetary claim an…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Judicial Oversight
• Primary Residence Execution
• Section 26 Constitution
• Force Majeure
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement

Madulammoho Housing Association v Mosiuoa and Another (9713/2022)

Madulammoho Housing Association v Mosiuoa and Another (9713/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 301 (20 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

9713/2022

Judge

J J Meiring

The court found that the applicant had established unlawful occupation by the first respondent, who failed to pay rent and breached the lease agreement. The respondent's defence of a rent-to-buy arrangement was unsupported by credible evidence or relevant documentation. The documents submitted by the respondent related to other projects and did not confer any right of ownership or entitlement to the unit. The respondent failed to provide sufficient information regarding his household's circumstances, income, or vulnerability to homelessness. The procedural requirements of the PIE Act were met…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Eviction Procedure
• Right To Adequate Housing
• Just And Equitable Test
• Unlawful Occupation
• Section 26 Constitution