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, PRETORIA
CASE Number : 2024 -084665
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
15 May 2025
In the matter between: -
SPHIWE MABEL MATHEBULA Applicant
and
DIBETSO ROBERT MOAGI First Respondent
DIBETSO PHUTI DORCUS Second Respondent
THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPANTS Third Respondent
EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Fourth
Respondent
JUDGMENT
JACOBS AJ
[1] This is an application for the eviction of the respondents from immovable
property. Judgment was granted against the respondents for their default in
payment of their mortgage bond obligations and the applicant purchased the
property concerned at a sale of execution. Following the judgment the respondents
brought an application for the rescission of the judgment granted against them. The
rescission application was dismissed.
[2] The applicant purchased the property on 8 October 2020 at a sale in
execution and the property was registered in her name on 27 June 2024. The title
deed is attached to the founding papers. The applicant visited the property on
numerous occasions and requested the respondents to vacate the same and alleged
that the respondent’s occupation is unlawful. The respondents applied for
interdictory relief against the applicant and challenge d her to take possession of the
land.
[3] Leave was granted to serve notice s of these proceedings on the
respondents in terms of Act 19 of 1998 and I am satisfied that service and notice
have taken place in accordance with that legislation.
[4] The respondent s delivered an opposing affidavit and challenge in general
terms the right of the applicant to seek the eviction of the occupiers of the property
concerned. The local authority has not responded to the notices and has not
participated in the litigation at all.
[5] The procedural requirements set out in sub -sections 4(2), (3), (4) and (5)
of the PIE Act have been complied with and I am satisfied that a case has been
made out in that regard. The substantive requirements stated by the PIE Act in sub -
sections 4(6), (7), (8) and (9) must then be considered. The unlawful occupiers (the
respondents) have been in occupation of the property concerned for more than six
months and section 4(7) of the PIE Act requires that I may grant an order for the
eviction of the responde nts if I am of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so
after considering all the relevant circumstances including whether the land has been
made available or can reasonabl y be made available by a municipality or other organ
of state. This provision has been excluded by section 4(7) where land is sold at a
sale in execution pursuant to a mortgage debt. I am not convinced that a valid
defence has been raised by the respondents that would justify the refusal of the relief
sought by the applicant. The answering affidavit states that the respondents
challenge the applicant’s ownership and right to claim the relief sought. In my view
and considering the evidence presented to me, the applicant’s right to claim the
eviction of the respondents is unassailable and I find that the applicant is the owner
of the land concerned, that the respondents are in unlawful occupation of the land
and that it would be just and equitable to grant an eviction order against the
respondents. The respondents have acted most unreasonably and were not mindful
of the consequences of the ir conduct following the dismissal of their application for
rescission of judgment. In my view the respondents acted in a reckless manner
without taking timeous and adequate steps to secure accommodation for themselves
elsewhere.
[6] Under the circumstances I grant the following order:
1. The First to the Third Respondent s and all those who occupy the
premises described as 9[...] C[...] DRIVE, NORKEM PARK
EXTENSION 4, KEMPTON PARK, GAUTENG PROVINCE
(hereinafter referred as ‘the property’) under and by virtue of the First
Respondent including her servants and employees, if any, be and
are hereby evicted from the premises within 14 days of service of the
Court order.
2. In the event of the First to the Third Respondents and all those who
occupy the premises under and by virtue of the First to the Third
Respondents occupancy thereof, including her servants and
employees, failing and/or refusing to vacate the premises, within the
period stipulated by the Honourable Court that the Sheriff of the
above Honourable Court with jurisdiction be and is hereby
authorised to forthcoming enter upon the premises to evict the First
Respondent and all those who occupy the premises under and by
virtue of her occupancy.
3. That the Sheriff of the above Honourable Court with jurisdiction is
hereby authorised to evict the First to the Third Respondents and all
those who occupy the premises under her occupancy thereof if need
arises, she is authorised to utilise the assistance of the South African
Police Services.
4. The Respondents are to pay costs of this application on attorney and
own client scale.
H F JACOBS
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Heard on : 12 May 2025
For the Applicant : Adv FN Munangwa
Email: naledimunangwa.nm@gmail.com
Instructed by : Serokolo Attorneys
Email: litigation@serokoloattorneys.co.za
For the Defendants :
Instructed by : TP Phalane Attorneys
Email: tumishopr@gmail.com
Date of Judgment : 15 May 2025