Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Nwobi and Another v Metsing and Others (2017/043444) [2025] ZAGPJHC 580 (10 June 2025)
Eviction granted under PIE, but some occupiers are protected until the City provides temporary emergency accommodation within two years.
K2012150042 (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd v Unknown Unlawful Occupiers of ERF 7[...], E[...] Township and Another (21/40484) [2025] ZAGPJHC 301 (19 March 2025)
The High Court granted an eviction order against unlawful occupiers, with staged vacating dates, demolition authority, and temporary emergency accommodation obligations for the City.
Okoye and Another v Lockyer and Others (2022/43051) [2024] ZAGPJHC 623 (9 July 2024)
High Court eviction matter under PIE. The court ordered unlawful occupiers to vacate by 31 January 2025, with TEA assessments and accommodation obligations for qualifying occupiers.
White Wall Trading (CC) and Another v Biyela and Others (090403/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 54 (26 January 2024)
The court found that the applicants failed to satisfy the stringent requirements for urgent eviction under section 5 of PIE. There was no evidence of imminent danger to persons or property, and the hardship to the owners did not exceed that to the occupiers, who would be rendered homeless. The reference to fires elsewhere was speculative and not directly linked to the properties in question. Additionally, the existence of pending eviction applications from 2011 between the same parties rendered the present application defective. The counterapplication for TEA was also dismissed as the City wa…
Source excerpt
Rycloff-Beleggings (PTY) Ltd v Bonkolo and 70 Others (2019/18156) [2022] ZAGPJHC 796 (4 October 2022)
Eviction was granted, but only if the City first provides specified temporary emergency accommodation near the respondents’ waste-reclaiming work.
Saloojee and Another v The Unlawful Occupiers of Erf 10742 (10410/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 730 (8 June 2021)
The applicants have established ownership of the property and the respondents are unlawful occupiers who did not seek permission to occupy or erect dwellings. The PIE Act requires the court to consider whether eviction is just and equitable, taking into account the personal circumstances of the occupiers and the availability of alternative accommodation. The City of Johannesburg's assessment revealed that neither Mr Maluleke nor Ms Twala would be rendered homeless by eviction, as both have family homes or the financial means to secure rental accommodation. The court found no constitutional ob…
Source excerpt
Marialdo Tre (Pty) Ltd v Dlamini and Others (45617/2017) [2019] ZAGPJHC 299 (23 August 2019)
The High Court granted an eviction order against unlawful occupiers, linked the eviction date to municipal temporary emergency accommodation, and made no costs order.
City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and Others (SCA) [2012] ZASCA 116; 2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA); 2012 (11) BCLR 1206 (SCA); [2013] 1 All SA 8 (SCA) (14 September 2012)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court's order requiring the sheriff to compile a matrix of occupier information was legally ineffective, as it exceeded the statutory functions of the sheriff and could not be enforced. The City of Johannesburg was properly joined as a necessary party because the eviction would likely trigger its constitutional obligations to provide emergency accommodation. The applicant for eviction bears the onus to place sufficient information before the court to enable a just and equitable determination, but the local authority must also provide a detailed r…
Source excerpt
Explore more
