South Africa Case Law

Rissik Street One Stop CC t/a Rissik Street Engen and Another v Engen Petroleum Ltd (CCT 196/21)

Rissik Street One Stop CC t/a Rissik Street Engen and Another v Engen Petroleum Ltd (CCT 196/21) [2023] ZACC 4; 2023 (4) BCLR 425 (CC); 2024 (4) SA 447 (CC) (1 February 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 196/21

Judges

Zondo, Baqwa, Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mbatha, Mhlantla, Rogers, Tshiqi

The Constitutional Court held that section 12B of the Petroleum Products Act vests wide remedial powers in an arbitrator to correct unfair or unreasonable contractual practices, including permitting continued occupation of premises after the expiry of an operating lease if necessary to effectuate the correction. The Court found that the applicants' right to sell the business was frustrated by Engen's refusal to consent to proposed purchasers without reasons, and that eviction would irreparably harm the applicants by destroying the business's goodwill. The Court rejected the Supreme Court of A…

Source excerpt

• Petroleum Products Act
• Unfair Contractual Practice
• Stay Of Eviction
• Arbitration Remedies
• Goodwill And Entrenched Value

Mutale v P and Others (028197/2022)

Mutale v P and Others (028197/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 748 (7 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

028197/2022

Judge

Kooverjie

Urgent High Court application to stay eviction proceedings pending review of a prior settlement order was dismissed with costs.

• Stay Of Eviction
• Urgent Application
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Locus Standi
• Review Of Magistrates Order
• Urgent-application

Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tukei and Another (48358/2021)

Intelligent PI (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tukei and Another (48358/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 48 (10 February 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

48358/2021

Judge

Roland Sutherland

The High Court refused leave to appeal against a refusal to stay an eviction order, finding no prospects of success and awarding attorney-and-client costs.

• Stay Of Eviction
• Leave To Appeal
• Discretion Of Court
• Costs On Attorney And Client Scale
• Leave-to-appeal
• Stay-of-eviction

Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v March and Others (18/44135)

Yellow River Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v March and Others (18/44135) [2021] ZAGPJHC 672 (18 August 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18/44135

Judge

B M Slon

The court found that, although the applicant's conduct was at times unfair and manipulative, the respondents had not paid any rent since December 2017 and had lived rent-free for over three years. The reasons advanced for non-payment were unconvincing and did not justify continued occupation. The respondents failed to demonstrate destitution or an inability to secure alternative accommodation, and the municipality was not obliged to provide emergency housing. The requirements of the PIE Act were satisfied, and eviction was just and equitable. However, considering the respondents' long occupat…

Source excerpt

• Eviction Under Pie Act
• Just And Equitable Relief
• Municipal Services
• Personal Circumstances Affidavits
• Stay Of Eviction
• Costs Orders

Teme v Dunga and Another (86012/2019)

Teme v Dunga and Another (86012/2019) [2020] ZAGPPHC 117 (16 March 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

86012/2019

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court granted an urgent stay of eviction pending determination of a separate ownership dispute, finding the applicant had shown prima facie rights and irreparable harm.

• Stay Of Eviction
• Interim Relief
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience
• Prescription Act
• Condonation Of Non Compliance

Wales v Myburgh (2017/16776)

Wales v Myburgh (2017/16776) [2018] ZAGPJHC 505 (31 July 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2017/16776

Judge

Z Carelse

The court found that the respondent's defences, based on alleged oral agreements for donation, compromise, or maintenance, were unsustainable in law due to the Alienation of Land Act, which requires written agreements for the transfer of immovable property. The evidence did not support the existence of a binding contract of maintenance or any real right to occupy the property. The correspondence and affidavits demonstrated, at best, an agreement to agree, not a concluded contract. The respondent's claim for a stay of eviction, pending her action for alternative accommodation, was rejected as…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Oral Agreements For Immovable Property
• Right Of Retention
• Contract Of Maintenance
• Stay Of Eviction
• Specific Performance

Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd v May and Others (94285/2015)

Highpoint Hotels (Pty) Ltd v May and Others (94285/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 918 (25 October 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

94285/2015

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the applicant is the registered owner of the property and that the respondents are in unlawful occupation, having refused to vacate after transfer. The applicant complied with all procedural requirements under the PIE Act. The respondents failed to disclose any relevant circumstances, apart from their ages, that would justify refusal or stay of eviction. The pending High Court proceedings regarding transfer of ownership were considered, but the court was not persuaded that the respondents had prospects of success or that a stay was warranted. The respondents' ages did not…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Unlawful Occupation
• Eviction Procedure
• Sale Of Property
• Stay Of Eviction

Andrews v MEC for Health of the Western Cape (A08/2011)

Andrews v MEC for Health of the Western Cape (A08/2011) [2011] ZAWCHC 451 (5 August 2011)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A08/2011

Judges

Fourie, Baartman

The court held that the appellant's dispute regarding his accommodation at Alexandra Hospital, and the Department's termination of this benefit, was employment-related and fell within the definition of an unfair labour practice under section 186(2)(a) of the Labour Relations Act. The Public Health & Welfare Sectoral Bargaining Council was the competent forum to resolve such disputes, and the Magistrate's Court should not have pre-empted the Bargaining Council's determination. The eviction application should have been stayed pending the final outcome of the Bargaining Council proceedings. The…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Labour Practice
• Employment Benefits
• Jurisdiction Of Labour Forum
• Stay Of Eviction
• Section 186 Lra