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
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 871
|
|
Leheti Investments CC v Mashiane and Others (40764 /2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 871 (25 May 2021)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION
LOCAL
SEAT, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 40764 /2019
DATE:
25 May 2021
Reportable:
No
Of
Interest to Other Judges: No
Revised
In
the matter between:
LEHETI
INVESTMENTS
CC
Applicant
and
RICHARD
MASHIANE
First Respondent
ALLILLEGAL
OCCUPIERSOF ERF 2697
CHLOORKOP
EXT. 52 Township
Second Respondent
EKURHULENI
METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
Johann
Gautschi AJ
1.
This is an application in terms of the Prevention
Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, Act 19 of
1998 (the
Act). The applicant, a Close Corporation, as the registered
owner of the property situated at 2697 Mississippi St, Chloorkop
extension
52 Tembisa (“the property”) applies for the
eviction of the first and second respondents from the property and
for
ancillary relief.
2.
Following an order granted pursuant to an ex
parte application in terms of section 4 (2) of the Act, answering
affidavits dated
24 July 2020 were filed by the Tembisa Local Office
of Legal Aid South Africa (Legal Aid) on behalf of the first and
second respondents.
Applicant’s replying was filed on 12 August
2020.
3.
Thereafter, on 8 October 2020 the applicant filed
its heads of argument and on 12 October 2020 applicant filed its
practice note
and an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 6 of the
Judge President’s Consolidated Directive dated 18 September
2020.
4.
On 12 February 2021 the respondents’ heads
of argument and practice note were filed on their behalf by Legal
Aid.
5.
Notice of set down dated 8 April 2021 was served
by email on Legal Aid in terms of which this matter was set down on
the opposed
motion roll for hearing on 4 May 2021.
6.
By email dated 22 April 2021 Legal Aid sent a
notice to the applicant’s attorneys advising of their
withdrawal as attorneys
of record for the first and second
respondents. The notice provided the last known address of the first
and second respondents
at the address of the property from which the
applicant seeks to evict the respondents.
7.
Attorney Cronje appeared before me via Microsoft
Teams videoconferencing at 2 PM on 4 May 2021, being the timeslot
which I allocated
for the hearing of this matter.
8.
Mr Cronje advised that there was no evidence that
the respondents were aware of the withdrawal of their attorneys or
that the matter
would be heard in the absence of their attorneys on
that day. I indicated that I had in mind granting an order in
accordance with
the draft order prepared and that I intended
preparing a short judgment based on having read the affidavits and
heads of arguments
filed by both parties.
9.
However, on further reflection when preparing
this judgment it seemed to me that it would be inappropriate in an
eviction application
to grant an order without being satisfied that
the respondents were aware that their attorneys had withdrawn and
that the matter
was to be heard on the date allocated.
10.
In the circumstances I grant the order set out
below.
ORDER:
1.
The application is postponed sine die.
2.
The applicant is directed to serve a fresh notice
of set down on the respondents via the Sheriff in accordance with the
provisions
of Rule 4, and if not possible, by fixing same to the
principal door of the property situated at 2697 Mississippi St,
Chloorkop
extension 52 Tembisa.
3.
The costs of the hearing on 4 May 2021 are
reserved.
Johann
Gautschi AJ
25
May 2021