Dlamini v Budaza and Others (12160/2024P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 121 (18 November 2025)

Case Note

Dlamini v Budaza and Others
High Court, KwaZulu-Natal Division, Pietermaritzburg
Case No: 12160/2024P
Judgment delivered on: 18 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable as it addresses significant legal principles concerning unlawful eviction under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act). The ruling clarifies the procedural requirements for eviction applications and the implications of ownership disputes involving oral agreements regarding immovable property. Moreover, the judgment illuminates the necessary considerations a court must make to determine the justice and equity of eviction orders, particularly in relation to alternative accommodation and the rights of vulnerable occupants.

Cases Cited

• Cooper and another NNO v Curro Heights Properties (Pty) Ltd [2023] ZASCA 66; 2023 (5) SA 402 (SCA)
• Van Leeuwen Pipe and Tube (Pty) Ltd v Mulroy and Another 1985 (3) SA 396 (D)
• Wilken v Kohler 1913 AD 135
• Clements v Simpson 1971 (3) SA 1 (A)
• Raven Estates v Miller 1984 (1) SA 251 (W)
• Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika 2003 (1) SA 113 (SCA)
• City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and Others [2012] ZASCA 116; 2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981
• Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998

Rules of Court Cited

• None explicitly mentioned in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The judgment pertains to an eviction application brought by the applicant, Thuliswa Dlamini, against the first and second respondents, Daphney Nomphini Budaza and Ntombela Mbanjwa, and relates to their alleged unlawful occupation of a property owned by Dlamini. The court considered whether the respondents' claims of occupancy based on an alleged oral sale agreement were valid in light of the Alienation of Land Act's requirements for property transactions.

Key Issues

The key legal issues addressed in this case include:

1. Whether the respondents are lawful occupiers of the property based on their claim of an oral sale agreement.
2. The procedural compliance of the applicant regarding the eviction and notification requirements set out in the PIE Act.
3. The justice and equity in granting an eviction order considering the circumstances presented by the respondents.

Held

The court held that the first and second respondents failed to establish any valid defense against the eviction, particularly due to the lack of a written agreement concerning the alleged sale of the property. Consequently, the court found it just and equitable to grant the eviction order, allowing the respondents 90 days to vacate the property.

THE FACTS

The applicant, Thuliswa Dlamini, is the lawful owner of a property registered under Deed of Transfer 37111/2015. The respondents, Daphney Budaza and Ntombela Mbanjwa, claimed occupation of the property based on an alleged oral agreement of sale made in 2016. Dlamini contended that the respondents were unlawful occupiers, as they failed to vacate after receiving requests. The dispute arose from the claimed existence of an oral sale which did not comply with the legal requirements for property transactions.

Dlamini filed an eviction application after multiple unsuccessful attempts to regain possession. Despite the respondents challenging the eviction, their defense primarily relied on a narrative of oral agreement, which Dlamini contended was unacceptable and void as per statutory requirements.

The court considered both parties' versions, with the respondent's arguments rooted in the allegation of a sale agreement and Dlamini's assertion of ownership under documented transfer.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with determining several critical legal questions:

1. Were the first and second respondents' claims of unlawful occupation valid in the face of statutory requirements?
2. Did the applicant properly comply with procedural requirements of the PIE Act regarding notices and eviction processes?
3. Were there any relevant circumstances indicating that eviction would be unjust or inequitable in terms of the occupants' needs?

ANALYSIS

The court's analysis primarily revolved around applicable legal principles governing property occupancy and eviction under the PIE Act and the Alienation of Land Act. The respondents' claim hinged on an oral agreement, which the court assessed against the statutory requirement of written agreements for land sale transactions. The court referenced the provisions of the Alienation of Land Act, which mandates that any agreement for the disposition of property must be reduced to writing and signed by the parties involved.

The court highlighted the significance of adhering to formalities set forth by the legislature to prevent fraud and facilitate certainty in high-value transactions. The lack of supporting evidence for the respondents’ claims significantly weakened their position. Furthermore, the court noted that despite the alleged occupancy involving vulnerable occupants, the respondents failed to substantiate claims of hardship or adverse effects resulting from the eviction, focusing instead on their expectations of being refunded for the alleged purchase.

The analysis further incorporated judicial precedent on the onus of proof in eviction contexts, establishing that where procedural requirements of PIE were satisfied, and no valid defense to unlawful occupation was shown, the court was compelled to grant the eviction order.

REMEDY

The court ordered the eviction of the first and second respondents, along with all individuals occupying the property through them, within a period of 90 days from the service of the court order. It also allowed for the sheriff to enforce the eviction should the respondents fail to vacate voluntarily within the stipulated time. Additionally, the respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the application.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established by this judgment include:

1. The requirement for a written agreement for the sale of immovable property as stipulated by the Alienation of Land Act.
2. The importance of compliance with eviction notice protocols outlined in the PIE Act to facilitate lawful eviction processes.
3. The stipulation that the absence of any valid defenses against eviction in light of statutory compliance obligates the court to grant eviction orders when just and equitable.
4. The emphasis on evidential onus and the necessity for occupants to disclose relevant circumstances impacting eviction outcomes, citing precedents that clarify judicial expectations in such matters.