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, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2017-043444
DATE : 10 June 2025
(1) NOT REPORTABLE
(2) NOT OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
CHIOMA OBIEZE NWOBI First A pplicant
CATHERINE ECHIONA NWOBI Second Applicant
and
DANIEL MOPEDI METSING First R espondent
MOLEFI ELLIOT MAKHETHA Second Respondent
GEORGE NKERE Third Respondent
MARAMBA VIMBAINASHE Fourth Respondent
OLAOTSE MOGOROSI Fifth Respondent
PIET MALEFEATSANE MOROBE Sixth Respondent
2
QULUNGWANE NCUBE Seventh Respondent
SAMUEL BABO MOFOKENG Eighth Respondent
AMOGELANG MANGENA Ninth Respondent
BASIE MASHIMBE Tenth Respondent
ALL THOSE OTHER PERSONS OCCUPYING ERF 1 […],
LORENZVILLE TOWNSHIP , AND ANY PERSON
OCCUPYING THR OUGH THEM Eleventh Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Twelfth Respondent
Neutral Citation : Nwobi and Another v Metsing and Other s (2017-043444 )
[2025] ZAGPJHC --- (10 June 2025)
Coram: Adams J
Heard : 22 May 2025
Delivered: 10 June 2025 – This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties' representatives by email , by being uploaded to
CaseLines and by relea se to SAFLII. The date and time for hand -down is
deemed to be 10:00 on 10 June 2025.
Summary: Civil procedure – eviction application – section 4 of the Prevention
of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) –
unlawful occupation – eviction – statutory eviction – meaning of ‘valid defence’
in PIE Act, s 4(8) – when unjust or inequitable to evict, unlawful occupiers
having valid defence – Local Authority’s obligation to provide temporary
emergency accommodation (‘TEA’) –
Eviction application granted – conditions imposed – City of Johannesburg
directed to provide TEA in due course – until such time, unlawful occupiers are
not to be evicted .
3
ORDER
(1). Save for those persons mentioned in paragraph (4) below, t he first,
second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh
respondents (‘respondents’) and all those occupying by, though and under the m
shall vacate the leased premises described as Erf 1[…] Lorentzville
Township, Johannesburg, which property is situated at 5[…] D[…] Road,
L[…], Johannesburg (‘the property’) within two months from date of this order.
(2). In the event of the respondents and/or all those persons occupying
through or under them , save for those mentioned in paragraph 4 below, fail ing
to vacate the property within two months f rom date of this order , the Sheriff of
this Court or her/his duly appointed Deputy, is authorised and directed to
forthwith enter the property and to evict from the property the respondents , save
for those mentioned in paragraph (4) below .
(3). The Sheriff of the Court or her/his lawfully appointed deputy, is authorised
and directed to approach the South African Police Service for any assistance that
s/he may deem necessary and appropriate herein.
(4). The twelfth respondent (‘City of Johannesburg’) is directed to provide
Temporary Emergency Accommodation (‘TEA’) within two years from date of
this order to the following persons, provided that they are still resident at the
property and have not voluntarily vacated same : -
(a) The occupier of Unit Number 3A , N[…] L[…], and the other
occupier of the unit (B […] L[…], who is 3 years old).
(b) The occupier of Unit Number 3 B, Matseliso Konyana.
(c) The occupier of Unit Number 4 , I[…] M[…], and the other occupier
of the unit (B […] G[…], who is 17 years old).
4
(d) The occupier of Unit Number 5 , Josef Mafa, and the other
occupiers of the unit (Mohlolo Mafa, who is 12 years old and another
occupier, who is 3 years old).
(e) The occupier of Unit Number 6 , Thabo Mokoena.
(f) The occupier of Unit Number 7 , Mapula Michelle Matlhoma.
(g) The occupier of Unit Number 8 , Thato Andries Miya, and the other
occupier of the unit (Mpho).
(h) The occupier of Unit Number 9 , Nthabiseng Bernice Langa.
(5). The twelfth respondent is ordered and directed to notify those
respondents listed in paragraphs 4(a) to (h) above in writing of the nature and
location of the accommodation to be provided to them in terms of paragraph 4
above within twenty months from date of this order.
(6). Those of the respondents listed in paragraphs 4(a) to (h) are ordered and
directed to vacate the property within two years from date of this order , failing
which the eviction order pertaining to them may be carried out, subject to the
conditions set out in paragraphs (4) and (5) above, having been met.
(7). The first to eleventh respondents, jointly and severally , the one paying
the other to be absolved , shall pay the applicants’ costs of this opposed
application, which costs shall include Counsel’s charges on scale ‘C’ of the tariff
applicable in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court.
JUDGMENT
Adams J :
5
[1]. This is an application by the applicants in terms of s 4 of the Prevention
of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act1 (PIE Act). The
applicants apply for orders evicting the first to the eleventh respondents
(‘respondents’) from the residential property, being Erf 1 […], Lorentzville
Township, Johannesburg, situate at 5 […] D[…] Road, L […], Johannesburg (‘the
property’). The property is owned by the applicants and the respondents are
presently in unlawful occupation of the said property in that they are not paying
rental for which they are liable in terms of any lease agreements in relation to
the property, nor do they lawfully occupy the property in terms of any other
rights entitling them to occupy the property to the exclusion of the lawful
owners, being the applicants. The applicants acquired ownership of the property
during 2015 and the respondents have since 2017 been living at the property
rent-free.
[2]. In sum, the case on behalf of the applicants is that the respondents, who
all occupy separate and individual rooms on the property and who are required
to pay rental in respect of such occupation, but never do, should be evicted
from the premises. The respondents have also failed to pay the charges relating
to the utilisation of water and electricity on the property and other municipal
services. The respondents oppose the application inter alia on the basis of a
denial that they are in breach of the lease agreements in place in respect of the
property. The respondents ’ aforesaid denial ring s hollow. There is no merit in
any of the supposed defences raised by them in opposition to the applicants ’
applica tion.
[3]. The only defence raised by the respondents with a hint of merit in it
relates to the claim by some of them that it would not be just and equitable for
this court to order their eviction. They have therefore placed before court certain
personal circumstances, which, according to them, demonstrate the inequity
and injustice that would result from their eviction. The twelfth respondent (‘the
1 Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 .
6
City’) has also placed before court a report dealing with the circumstances of
the respondents and which should assist the court in deciding the matter.
[4]. The main question to be considered by me is therefore whether it would
be just and equitable to evict the respondents from the property. Closely related
to this issue is the question whether any person is likely to be rendered
homeless as a result of being evicted from the property.
[5]. On the evidence before me, in particular, the latest report from the City of
Johannesburg in the form of an affidavit dated 31 October 2024 by its Executive
Director: Department of Human Settlements, it appears that there is a likelihood
that eight of the ten ‘households’ presently occupying the property would be
rendered homeless if evicted. Their individual incomes, as reported to the City,
are insufficient for purposes of them paying for alternative accommodation.
[6]. This then means that alternative arrangements should be made for them
in the event of an order to have them evicted. The difficulty is that the City of
Johannesburg does not have the resources to provide emergency alternative
accommodation. They have a backlog and a long waiting list of people who
need to be accommodated as a result of eviction Court orders and the state of
disrepair of a number of inner -city buildings. The City has accordingly requested
the Court to afford them a period of five years within which to find alternative
accommodation for the affected respondents.
[7]. The applicants contend that t he respondents have since May 2017 had
an opportunity to seek alternative accommodation . The applicants , so they
contend, cannot be expected to house the respondents indefinitely. Moreover,
so the contention continues, i nsofar as temporary emergency accommodation is
concerned this is triggered where the likelihood of homelessness upon eviction
is alleged. What is more, so the applicants argue, if the Court agrees to the
City’s request for a further five years, it means that the applicants will be
deprived for a further five years of the use and enjoyment of their property . By
7
that time , so the contention continues, the identity of the respondents could
easily have changed and the Order would be of no use because the people
against whom it was made would no longer be living on the property.
[8]. Whilst there is eminently merit in these contentions on behalf of the
applicant , I cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that an eviction order is likely to
render some of the respondents homeless. I also cannot ignore the reality that
the City of Johannesburg just does not have the resources to accommodate a
further group of persons in emergency alternative accommodation.
[9]. In my view, the eviction order should be granted in respect of those
respo ndents who will not be rendered homeless. As for the rest, the City should
be afforded a further two years within which to find alternative accommodation
for them. This, in my view, would make the eviction order, just and equitable in
the circumstances of the matter. I therefore intend granting an order to that
effect.
Order
[10]. Accordingly, I make the following order:
(1). Save for those persons mentioned in paragraph (4) below, the
first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and
eleventh respondents (‘respondents’) and all those occupying by, though
and under them shall vacate the leased premises described as Erf 1[…]
L[…] Township, Johannesburg, which property is situated at 5[…]
D[…] Road, L […], Johannesburg (‘the property’) within two months
from date of this order.
(2). In the event of the respondents and/or all those persons
occupying through or under them, save for those mentioned in paragraph
4 below, failing to vacate the property within two months from date of this
order, the Sheriff of this Court or her/his duly appointed Deputy, is
authorised and directed to forthwith enter the property and to evict from
8
the property the respondents, save for those mentioned in paragraph (4)
below.
(3). The Sheriff of the Court or her/his lawfully appointed deputy, is
authorised and directed to approach the South African Police Service for
any assistance that s/he may deem necessary and appropriate herein.
(4). The twelfth respondent (‘City of Johannesburg’) is directed to
provide Temporary Emergency Accommodation (‘TEA’) within two years
from date of this order to the following persons, provided that they are
still resident at the property and have not voluntarily vacated same: -
(a) The occupier of Unit Number 3A , N[…] L[…], and the other
occupier of the unit (B […] L[…], who is 3 years old).
(b) The occupier of Unit Number 3B , Matseliso Konyana.
(c) The occupier of Unit Number 4 , I[…] M[…], and the other occupier
of the unit (B […] G[…], who is 17 years old).
(d) The occupier of Unit Number 5 , J[…] M[…], and the other
occupiers of the unit (M […] M[…], who is 12 years old and another
occupier, who is 3 years old).
(e) The occupier of Unit Number 6 , Thabo Mokoena.
(f) The occupier of Unit Number 7 , Mapula Michelle Matlhoma.
(g) The occupier of Unit Number 8 , Thato Andries Miya, and the other
occupier of the unit (Mpho).
(h) The occupier of Unit Number 9 , Nthabiseng Bernice Langa.
(5). The twelfth respondent is ordered and directed to notify those
respondents listed in paragraphs 4(a) to (h) above in writing of the nature
and location of the accommodation to be provided to them in terms of
paragraph 4 above within twenty months from date of this order.
(6). Those of the respondents listed in paragraphs 4(a) to (h) are
ordered and directed to vacate the property within two years from date of
this order, failing which the eviction order pertaining to them may be
carried out, subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs (4) and (5)
above, having been met.
(7). The first to eleventh respondents, jointly and severally, the one
9
paying the other to be absolved, shall pay the applicants’ costs of this
opposed application, which costs shall include Counsel’s charges on
scale ‘C’ of the tariff applicable in terms of the Uniform Rules of Court.
L R ADAMS
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD ON: 21 May 2025
JUDGMENT DATE: 10 June 2024 – Judgment handed
down electronically
FOR THE APPLICANT S: M Rodrigues
INSTRUCTED BY: Kaveer Guiness Incorporated ,
Bordeaux , Randburg
FOR THE FIRST TO THE
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT S: K Masuthu
INSTRUCTED BY: Ramokolo Attorneys ,
Polokwane , Limpopo
FOR THE TWELFTH RESPONDENT: G McMaster
INSTRUCTED BY: Kunene Rampala Incorporated,
Braamfontein , Johannesburg