SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, P RETORIA

CASE NO : 047020/2025
DATE : 08-05-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 22/5/2025
SIGNATURE 10

In the matter between

DOLSID INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Applicant
Registration number 1980/003178/07

and

THOURY HASSAN T/A First Respondent
LITTLE VOICE DAY CARE CENTRE 20

CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN Second Respondent
MUNICIPALITY

J U D G M E N T

NEUKIRCHER , J: On 14 April 2025 Nyathi, J granted an order in
terms of section 5(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and
Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (the PIE Act) . The
notice informs the first respondent and all occupiers through him 30
that the applicant will seek their eviction on 29 April 2025.

A separate notice of set down for 6 May 2025, in
other words, in my urgent application court, was served on
the first respondent’s premises. A notice to oppose the
eviction application was served on behalf of the first
respondent by Kirpal Attorneys and his answering affidavit
(unsigned) was served on 25 April 2025.

According to the applicant the signed answering
affidavit was served on 30 April 2025 and the signed copy 10
was uploaded to CaseLines on the date of hearing on
6 May 2025.

It is common cause that the parties entered into a
written lease agreement on 8 February 2018 in respect of
the premises situated at 5[...] F[...] B[...] Street, Arcadia,
Pretoria. It is not disputed that:
a) the applicant is the registered owner of the
premises ;
b) the written lease was for a period of five years 20
commencing on 1 February 2018 and terminating
on 31 January 2023 with an option to renew ;
c) the lease was not renewed, instead it continued
on a month -to-month basis ;
d) the first respondent would pay rental to the
applicant as well as other charges and with an
annual escalation of eight percent by the first
day of each month ;
e) various warrantees were given by each party
vis-à-vis the condition of the property ; 30
f) the applicant had sent the first respondent a
final notice of termination (there being one sent
already on 2 December 2024) on
14 December 2024, which the first respondent

states “clearly indicates that the property needs
to be vacated by 31 May 2025.”
According to the first respondent these termination
notices were based on arrear rentals which he says he has
paid. Ostensibly as proof of payment he attaches an
invoice from the applicant for the month of April 2025 which
indicates an amount due and payable of R67 514.30. He
also attaches a proof of payment dated 24 April 2025 of
R33 000. Thus, based on this invoice, an amount of
R34 514.30 remained unpaid. 10

The first respondent has also failed to attach the
termination letters of 2 December 2024 and
14 December 2024, however, it is not disputed that the
lease was terminated by the applicant due to non -payment
of the rental amount and it is also not disputed that he is to
vacate the premises by 31 May 2025 , which is an
indulgence given to him by the applicant.

The first respondent argues that as he has until 20
31 May 2025 to vacate the premises, this application is
premature and not urgent.

What precipitated the application was that the
applicant states that on approximately 1 April 2025 it came
to its attention that the first respondent was participating in
what it calls various illegal activities :
a) illegal trading and other structures have been
erected without approval, making them non -
compliant with the material building standards 30
and codes and thus requiring their removal ;
b) the installation of various dangerous illegal
electricity connections, which renders occupation
of the premises unsafe and a fire hazard to not

only the property, but those properties next to it
and in its proximity ;
c) the unsafe and unhygienic living conditions of
the occupants of the properties.
On 3 April 2025 the applicant delivered a “ Notice to vacate
with immediate effect.” The relevant portions of this notice
state the following:

“This letter serves as a notice to inform you
that we cancel the month -to-month lease 10
with immediate effect. You need to vacate
the premises, 5[...] F[...] B[...] Street,
Arcadia, Pretoria, 0083 with immediate
effect.

This notice is due to:
- Illegal trading and structures which have
been erected, without prior approval,
making the structure illegal and non -
compliant with the national building 20
standards and codes, thus requiring the
removal thereof.
- Electricity theft alternatively installed
various dangerous illegal electricity
connections.
- The living standards of how the
occupants are currently living on the
premises.
- This is, with respect, unacceptable and
without reason not in the best interest of 30
the, of any person/occupant currently
residing on the leased premises and as
is evident has not only become an
unsafe and a health issue but a fire

hazard as well to itself and adjoin ing
properties.

Please note that should the premises not
be vacated with immediate effect, legal
steps will be taken against you and all
costs will be for your account.
All damages to the premises will be
recovered from your deposit, and any
additional costs will be claimed from you.” 10

Thus, although the first respondent has interpreted this as a
termination letter due to arrear rental (which he disputes) it
clearly is not. It is a notice to vacate based on the
conditions found on the premises which constitute a fire,
health and safety hazard to all the occupants.

The applicant argues that the first respondent’s
conduct constitutes a flagrant breach of clause s 8 and 9 of
the original lease which places the burden of maintenance 20
and repair of the premises squarely in the first respondent’s
lap, for example:

“8.4. The lessee also agrees to keep the
area adjacent to its portion of the leased
premises clean and tidy and free from
refuse and shall not permit persons to
loiter in such area.
8.11. Not change or interfere with or
overload the electrical installation in the 30
leased premises.
9.1. The lessor shall keep the exterior of
the leased premises in good order and
repair and the lessee undertakes to notify

the lessor in writing of any defects to the
exterior of the leased premises and/or
improvements to the property which
become apparent to it during the period of
this lease, in which event the lessor shall
remedy the defect within a reasonable
time.”

These are but a few mentioned.
10
The photographs attached to the founding affidavit
speak to a building in various stages of disrepair and
neglect: brick dwellings with tin roof s, rusted doors and
crumbling mortar are depicted.

The illegal electricity connections show long
extension cords draped across tin roofs exposed to the
elements and descending from large holes in ceilings and
tied to pipes inside and outside the structures.
20
The living conditions in the photographs point to
structures in varying stages of serious neglect: peeling
plaster, water damage to ceilings, crumbling plasters, leaks
and missing tiles.

Interestingly the first respondent does not take
issue with the photographs. The high -water marks of his
defence are:
a) the lease was not validly immediately terminated
on 8 April 2025 as he has been given until 30
31 May 2025 to vacate the premises ;
b) the property “currently has 22 families residing
there and being fully dependable on the
property. From these families there are various

children, sickly persons, old people, babies, four
paraplegics, all of which, all of who will need
alternative accommodation as they will be left
homeless and left on the street ”;
c) he is busy effecting repairs to the premises.

The first respondent, however, provides not one shred of
proof for his allegations :
a) he takes no issue with the photographs or the
state of disrepair of the building or the 10
dangerous electrical connections, this aside from
whether or not they are or are not illegal in the
first place;
b) he provides no proof of the extent of the alleged
repairs he intends to effect and this allegation
must also be rejected as on his own version he
says that he must vacate by 31 May 2025, in
other words, by the end of this month ;
c) there is not one affidavit, letter, statement or
any shred of proof from any of the alleged 22 20
families occupying the premises ;
d) he does not say he is providing free housing for
these occupants and therefore the inescapable
conclusion is that the occupants indeed pay
rental to him, which was conceded in court.
The argument was also that:
a) the applicant has failed to pro ve a risk of
imminent danger or harm to the occupiers as is
required by section 5(1)(a) of PIE ;
b) that an eviction will leave the 22 families 30
without accommodation and this will infringe on
their right to adequate housing ;
c) that no report has been sought from the
municipality to address the suitable alternative

housing issue. See City of Johannesburg
Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight
Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd 2011 (4) SA 337 (SCA) ;
d) the “imminent danger” issue is not new as:
“The occupiers have occupied the building since
August 2018 and no incidents or fires have been
reported” - this was stated in argument.

The last submission is based on White Wall Trading (CC)
and Another v Biyela and Others (090403/2023) [2024] 10
JAGPJHC 54 (26 January 2024) in which the court stated
the following:
“The applicants rely on imminent danger
and reference the fires occurring in the
city. That a fire occurred elsewhere is
insufficient to satisfy the test of imminent
danger or harm. A fire could occur
anywhere in the city. In these buildings,
however the report shows no evidence
other than the normal disintegration and 20
crumbling of a building neglected over time
and subjected to inappropriate use. This is
no indication of imminent danger. ”

But in my view, none of the quoted authorities are relevant
to the facts at hand :
a) it is common cause that the first respondent pays
rent. He therefore has the means to obtain
suitable alternative accommodation not only for
himself, but anyone who occupies through him 30
(as that appears to be the present situation);
b) it is admitted by him that the lease was
cancelled on 14 December 2024 and that the first
respondent has known that he must vacate the

premises on 31 May 2025 . Thus he , and all those
who occupy through him, have had five months
to find suitable alternative accommodation for
themselves ;
c) also, the applicant’s agreement is with the first
respondent. If he has agreements with the other
occupiers, it is he who owes any possible
responsibility towards them, not the applicant ;
d) the undisputed photographs evidence a
troubling state of disrepair and dangerous 10
circumstances in which these alleged 22 families
live.

To allege that a fire has not yet broken out, simply displays
in my view a very cynical view of these facts. It also
displays a lack of concern for the occupants of the
premises, which is troubling.

In my view the notice to immediately vacate dated
3 April 2025 stands on good grounds. A breach notice was 20
unnecessary as the lease had already been cancelled in
December 2024 and it was only the notice to vacate on
31 May 2025 that was moved up because of section 5(1)(a)
of PIE.

The applicant seeks an order that the first
respondent and all occupiers are to vacate within seven
days of date of this order. It argues that each day that
passes is a day in which a fire could break out and spread
not only within the premises itself but to the adjoining and 30
adjacent buildings.

This is a concern . But this court must also balance
the first respondent’s interests and that is to find alternative

accommodation and move out. Of course, as I have said,
the first respondent has known for almost five months of the
impending end date of this lease and there is no evidence
that there has been any attempt to find alternative
accommodation.

Thus, to give the first respondent and any
occupiers a last gasp, I am of the view that it is fair and
reasonable to vacate within two weeks of date of this order.
10
Clause 13.8(a) of the agreement provides that an
“aggrieved party” shall be entitled to recover from the
defaulting party attorney and own client costs of any legal
proceedings. In my view attorney and own client costs are
not appropriate, but attorney and client costs , are given the
first respondent’s conduct.

Thus, an order is granted as follows:
1. Confirmation of cancellation of the lease
agreement entered into between the applicant 20
and the first and second respondents on
7 February 2018.
2. The first respondent and all those living through
or under them are ejected from the premises
situated at 5[...] F[...] B[...] Street, Arcadia,
Pretoria , Gauteng Province, together with any
moveable property that is or that is on or in the
premises in terms of section 5(1) read together
with 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction
from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 30
1998 within two weeks from date of this order.
3. The first respondent is ordered to pay the
attorney and client costs of this application.
- - - - - - - - - - - -


NEUKIRCHER , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Judgment handed down: 8 May 2025
Transcript revised: 22 May 2025