South Africa Case Law

City of Cape Town v Hussain and Others (Appeal) (A268/2024)

City of Cape Town v Hussain and Others (Appeal) (A268/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 171 (17 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A268/2024

Judges

Lekhuleni, Ralarala

The court held that the postponement order issued by the magistrate is purely interlocutory and does not meet the requirements for appealability under section 83 of the Magistrates' Court Act or the Zweni test. The order does not finally determine any rights, is susceptible to variation, and does not dispose of any substantial portion of the relief claimed in the eviction application. The interests of justice do not justify entertaining an appeal against such an order, as piecemeal litigation is discouraged. The alternative argument for review was rejected as it was not properly raised and th…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Appealability Of Interlocutory Orders
• Meaningful Engagement
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Just And Equitable Eviction
• Magistrates Court Procedure

Mantsopa Local Municipality v All Unlawful and Unidentified Persons and Others (3591/2024)

Mantsopa Local Municipality v All Unlawful and Unidentified Persons and Others (3591/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 64 (27 February 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3591/2024

Judge

Mpama AJ

The High Court confirmed an eviction order against unlawful occupiers on municipal land in Ladybrand, finding the occupation recent and justifying a two-month vacate period.

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Procedure
• Just And Equitable Standard
• Municipal Duties

Standard Bank of South Africa v Van Nelson and Another (Reasons) (18696/2023)

Standard Bank of South Africa v Van Nelson and Another (Reasons) (18696/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 353; 2025 (3) SA 658 (WCC) (4 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18696/2023

Judge

T J Golden

The court found that the respondents' arrears were negligible, amounting to only 2.8 months, with no history of significant default. The bank failed to demonstrate that all reasonable avenues to satisfy the arrears had been exhausted before seeking execution against the primary residence. The application contained discrepancies regarding service, knowledge of dependents, and payment arrangements. The respondents had made a payment towards the arrears, indicating a potential to cure the default. Granting execution under these circumstances would be disproportionate and iniquitous, especially g…

Source excerpt

• Execution Against Primary Residence
• Uniform Rule 46a
• Proportionality In Foreclosure
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Default Judgment
• Judicial Discretion

Firstrand Bank Limited v Van Niekerk and Others (51/2020)

Firstrand Bank Limited v Van Niekerk and Others (51/2020) [2024] ZAECQBHC 46 (9 July 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

51/2020

Judge

Beshe

The High Court dismissed an application to declare the respondents’ home executable under Rule 46A, finding that execution would unfairly infringe their housing rights.

• Rule 46a Executable Property
• Primary Residence Protection
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Judgment Debt Enforcement
• Rule-46a
• Primary-residence-execution

Petrus Johannes Bestbier and Others v Nedbank Ltd (CCT 181/22)

Petrus Johannes Bestbier and Others v Nedbank Ltd (CCT 181/22) [2024] ZACC 2; 2024 (6) BCLR 741 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 331 (CC) (12 April 2024)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 181/22

Judges

Maya, Kollapen, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Rogers, Schippers, Theron, Tshiqi, Van Zyl

The Constitutional Court held that Rule 46A applies to trust-owned residential property occupied by natural persons, but dismissed the appeal and struck the cross-appeal.

• Uniform Rule 46a
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Trust Property Execution
• Notice To Affected Parties
• Extension Of Security Of Tenure Act
• Huur Gaat Voor Koop

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Harmse and Others (0014030/2017)

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Harmse and Others (0014030/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 860 (31 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0014030/2017

Judge

de Vos

The High Court dismissed a municipality’s bid to force eviction for zoning compliance, holding the relief effectively amounted to an eviction order barred by section 26 protections.

• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Municipal Zoning
• Eviction Proceedings
• Meaningful Engagement
• Interdicts
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction

Khoza v Madulammoho Housing & Others (2022/9714)

Khoza v Madulammoho Housing & Others (2022/9714) [2023] ZAGPJHC 330 (12 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/9714

Judge

Gilbert AJ

The court found that the applicant was evicted pursuant to a warrant of eviction issued under a court order that made a settlement agreement an order of court. The applicant failed to establish the requirements for the mandament van spolie, as the dispossession was authorised by an extant court order. Interim interdictory relief was not suitable as the eviction had already occurred. However, the court held that the eviction order did not comply with PIE, as the court did not consider all relevant circumstances or determine just and equitable dates as required by sections 4(7) and 4(8). The ap…

Source excerpt

• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Interim Interdict
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Rescission Of Order
• Just And Equitable Eviction

Van Loggenberg NO v Jones and Others (2022/19225)

Van Loggenberg NO v Jones and Others (2022/19225) [2023] ZAGPJHC 317 (3 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/19225

Judge

RM Keightley

The court found that the executrix, duly appointed and not removed, had locus standi to bring the eviction application. The first respondent failed to establish any valid legal defence to eviction, as her claims regarding a universal partnership and the existence of a later will were vague, unsupported by evidence, and not properly before the court. The respondent's continued occupation was unlawful and detrimental to the estate, and her appropriation of estate assets without authority further justified the executrix's need for possession. The respondent did not demonstrate that eviction woul…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Universal Partnership Claim
• Locus Standi Of Executrix
• Balancing Property And Housing Rights

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021)

Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021) [2023] ZALCC 7 (16 March 2023)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC209/2021

Judge

M T Ncube

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to just administrative action and that meaningful engagement with both the receiving community and the occupier respondents was lacking. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as there was reasonable apprehension of harm, the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and no alternative remedy was available. The relocation was stayed pending the outcome of the review application, and the municipality was ordered to provide comprehensive reports on community engagement, long-term housing plans, inco…

Source excerpt

• Relocation Of Occupiers
• Meaningful Engagement
• Just Administrative Action
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Interim Interdict
• Consultation Requirements

Nedbank Limited v Trustees for the time being of the Mthunzi Mdwaba Family Trust and Others

Nedbank Limited v Trustees for the time being of the Mthunzi Mdwaba Family Trust and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 93; A162/2021 (16 February 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A162/2021

Judges

Phahlane, M Munzhelele, H Koovertje

The court held that Rule 46A applies to residential property registered in the name of a trust when it is occupied as a primary residence by trust beneficiaries. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Bestbier clarified that the protection of Rule 46A extends to such beneficiaries, and the court must conduct a proper inquiry into their circumstances, including indigence and vulnerability, before authorising execution. In this case, there was no evidence before the court regarding the respondents' indigence or whether they fall under the Jaftha requirements. Therefore, the matter must be remitted to t…

Source excerpt

• Rule 46a Executable Property
• Primary Residence Protection
• Judicial Oversight
• Section 26 Right To Housing
• Trust Property Execution
• Reserve Price Setting