About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPJHC 100
|
|
Sarabjiet v Sathege and Another (40436/2017) [2018] ZAGPJHC 100 (13 March 2018)
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 40436/2017
In the matter
between:
KEVIN KRISHEN PAUL SARABJIET
(Identity
Number:
[…])
Applicant
and
MOSES
LESIBA
SATHEGE
First
Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Second
Respondent
JUDGMENT
MODIBA,
J
:
[1] The applicant
seeks an order evicting Sathege from the leased premises. The
application is opposed by Sathege who raises two
grounds of
opposition, namely, that no lease agreement was ever concluded
between the parties and that the applicant has sold the
premises.
[2] The applicant’s
ownership of the premises is proven by a Deeds Office print out
attached to the founding affidavit and
the title deed attached to the
replying affidavit. It is trite that this document is admissible
documentary proof of ownership
of immovable property.
[3] Sathege’s
disputation of the lease agreement is a red herring. He does not set
out the lawful basis for occupying the
property. He had offered to
vacate the property in August 2017 but failed to do so. His
disputation of the applicant’s title
also lacks merit. He has
been in occupation of the property for more than 1 year without
paying rent. He clearly lacks a meritorious
defence. His failure to
appear in court to argue the matter after filing opposing papers is
probably further indicative of his
lack of a valid defence. There is
no reason why the applicant should be out of pocket under these
circumstances. This justifies
costs on an attorney and client scale
as claimed by the applicant.
[4] His submission
that he lacks money to pay for alternative accommodation is
unsubstantiated. This court makes nothing out of
it. The applicant
has sold premises to another buyer to whom he has to give vacant
occupation of the property. Sathege’s
continued occupation of
the property is clearly prejudicial to him and to the buyer of the
property.
[5]
The applicant having complied with
all the
requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful
Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998, in the circumstances,
I find
that
granting an order is just and equitable
.
Given
that Sathege had agreed to vacate the property in August 2017, a
shorter notice period is justified in these circumstances.
However
counsel for the applicant submitted from the bar that she holds
instructions to agree to the vacation date of 15 April
2018.
[6]
I therefore make the following
order:
ORDER
1.
The first respondent, and
all those who occupy the property through him, described as Erf […],
Turf Club Township, Province
known as Province of Gauteng known as
[…] U. Street, Turffontein (“
the
premises
”) are
ordered to vacate the premises by 15 April 2018.
2.
In the event that the
first respondent and/or any person occupying the premises through him
fail to vacate the property within 14
days of the order being served
on them, that the Sheriff or his lawfully appointed deputy for the
area within which the property
is situated is authorized to evict the
first respondent and all such other persons on the property on 16
April 2018.
3.
The first respondent shall
pay the costs of the application on the attorney and client scale.
________________________________________
MADAM JUSTICE
L T MODIBA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
APPEARANCES
Counsel for
applicant:
Ms. C Humphries
Instructed
by:
Miranda & Associates Inc
For the first
respondent:
The first respondent,
who would have
appeared in person, failed to appear.
Date of
hearing:
13 March 2018
Date of
judgment:
13 March 2018