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
Golden Harvest Medical Centre Proprietary Limited v Ntsanu and Others (2024/133489) [2025] ZAGPJHC 528 (27 May 2025)
Urgent eviction under section 5 of PIE was refused because the applicant failed to show that no other effective remedy existed.
Dolsid Investments (Pty) Ltd v Thoury Hassan t/a Little Voice Day Care Centre and Another (047020/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 554 (22 May 2025)
The court found that the applicant had validly cancelled the lease due to persistent breaches and that the conditions on the premises, including illegal electricity connections and severe disrepair, posed a real and imminent risk to the safety and health of the occupants and neighbouring properties. The respondent failed to provide any credible evidence of repairs or alternative arrangements for the occupiers, nor did he dispute the photographic evidence of dangerous conditions. The court held that the urgency of the application was justified under section 5(1)(a) of the PIE Act, and that the…
Source excerpt
HL Hall Properties (Pty) Ltd v Alliance Church and Others (6192/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 8; [2025] 2 All SA 451 (MM) (5 March 2025)
The court found that the respondents occupied the applicant's property unlawfully, having erected structures without municipal approval on land zoned for agriculture. The applicant's geotechnical report, which remained unchallenged, established that the soil is highly collapsible and compressible, posing imminent danger to the occupiers. The respondents failed to provide any expert evidence to refute this risk. The hardship to the applicant in rehabilitating the land and the risk to life and property outweighed the hardship to the respondents, who were mostly employed and not indigent. No oth…
Source excerpt
Sebigi v Strauss (LANC161/2024; LANC161/2024B) [2025] ZALCC 2 (15 January 2025)
The Court found that the First Respondent's actions—removal of the roof, windows, and doors, disconnection of water and electricity, and installation of a disruptive alarm—constituted constructive eviction, violating the Applicant's rights under sections 5 and 6 of ESTA and section 26 of the Constitution. The evidence showed that the Applicant was an occupier entitled to ESTA protections and that the alternative accommodation offered was inadequate and undignified. The Court held that the Rental Housing Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over ESTA matters and its order for arrear rental was a nulli…
Source excerpt
Textton Property Fund Limited v Maxine Gunzenhauser and Company Incorporated and Others (2024/098805) [2024] ZAGPJHC 909 (10 September 2024)
The High Court struck an urgent eviction application from the roll because the applicant failed to show real urgency, and ordered costs against the applicant.
City of Johannesburg v Unlawful Occupiers Of Various Units of Various Units At Donovan Macdonald Retirement Centre (2024/090272) [2024] ZAGPJHC 847 (2 September 2024)
The High Court dismissed the City of Johannesburg’s urgent PIE eviction bid from the Donovan MacDonald Retirement Centre for failing to identify the unlawful occupiers and prove imminent harm.
4Eleven Properties (Pty) Ltd v Makhosi and Others (2024/052019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 721 (8 July 2024)
High Court eviction order granted after tenants withheld rent in defiance of a prior order and failed to show that eviction would make them homeless.
De Beer and Others v Ntsondwa and Others (2023/070905) [2024] ZAGPJHC 466 (17 May 2024)
Urgent eviction and spoliation relief was granted after the court found unlawful occupation, spoliation of Unit 2, and no basis for alternative accommodation.
Lodestone Investments (Pty) Ltd v Amogelang Transport Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (2024/025519) [2024] ZAGPJHC 309 (26 March 2024)
The High Court struck an urgent eviction application from the roll, holding that the applicant had created its own urgency and had not complied with the lease notice clause.
Andeon Housing Portfolio v Shadung and Others (2024-027467) [2024] ZAGPJHC 330 (31 January 2024)
The High Court granted an urgent interim eviction under PIE against two respondents who had placed students in occupation of the applicant’s property without authority.
Explore more
