About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 478
|
|
Kruger v Molefe and Another (67228/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 478 (5 June 2015)
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 DIVISION)
Case No.: 67228/2013
DATE: 05 JUNE 2015
In the matter between:
RUANNN
KRUGER
..........................................................................................................
APPLICANT
And
CREZENSIA
MOLEFE
....................................................................................
FIRST
RESPONDENT
EKHURHULENI METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
...........................................................................................
SECOND
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
HIEMSTRA AJ
[1] The applicant seeks the eviction of
the first respondent from a property described as [Erf 2………],
[I………..]
Street, [Ext 3………],
[V……..], Boksburg. The applicant alleges
that he is the registered owner of the
property, and as proof attached a “Search- Works Report”
reflecting him as the
current owner.
[2] He alleges further that he had
previously entered into an oral lease agreement with the first
respondent in terms whereof she
had undertaken to pay a monthly
rent¬al of R3 500. However, on her own admission, she never paid
anything towards the agreed
rental. The applicant cancelled the lease
agreement in terms of a letter from his attorneys to the first
respondent, dated 27 September
2013, a copy of which is attached to
the founding affidavit. The first respondent admitted that she had
entered into an oral lease
agreement, but denies that it had been
cancelled. Paradoxically, she claims in the alternative that she is
the “lawful owner”
of the property. These are mutually
exclusive allegations that cannot co-exist. She cannot rent her own
property from herself.
[3] In explaining how she came to be
the owner of the property, she states that she and her late husband
had bought the property
‘through the close corporation”.
She alleges that the close corporation is Masekane Industrial and
Engineering Supplies
CC in which her late husband held a 55% member’s
interest. The other member with a 45% interest was a certain Du
Pliessis.
She says that the relationship between the late Mr Molefe
and Du Plessis had deteriorated resulting in Mr Molefe “resigning
from” the corporation. This is a bald statement, devoid of any
documentary proof. There is no record that the property had
ever been
registered to such corporation. The first respondent also failed to
provide any agreement of sale in terms of which such
a close
corporation acquired the property. In any event, first respondent’s
late
husband had “resigned from the
close corporation”, from which it can be inferred that he had
parted with his members’
interest.
[4] Therefore, the first respondent
made no cogent allegations from which her claim to the property
appears.
[5] I accept that the applicant is the
lawful owner of the property and that he is enti¬tled to
occupation thereof.
In the result I make an order in terms
of the prayers 1 to 4 of the Notice of Motion.
J. HIEMSTRA
ACTING JUDGEOF THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
Date heard: 3 June 2015
Date of judgment: 5 June 2015
Counsel for the applicant: Adv van
den Bogert
Attorney for the applicant: Stuart
van der Merwe Inc
Counsel for the respondent: Benoni
Justice Centre
Attorney for the respondent: Benoni
Justice Centre