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 LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2022 -018083
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
07 JULY 2025
In the matter between:
NORVENA PROPERTY CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
MASHAMBA, THIFHELIMBILU PATSON First Respondent
THE OCCUPIERS OF UNIT NUMBER F […] 2[…],
N[…] C[…], STAND 5004, C […] C[…]
STREET AND P[ …] N[…] STREET, HILLBROW Second Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
REASONS
MAHOMED J
INTRODUCTION
[1] The applicant applied for eviction of the respondent; it is common cause that
the applicant complied with section 4 (2) of the Prevention of Illegal Evictions Act. The matter appeared on my opposed roll and the proof of service of set down is on file
1
[2] The respondent appeared on the day without her legal representative and
informed the court that although he has been assisting her all along for the past five years, it was only on the day before the hearing that he informed her that he was no longer available to represent her. She contended that she did not know the reasons
and requested a postponement of the matter to be allowed to engage the services of
another attorney. Counsel for the applicant directed me to proof of service of a draft
joint practice note dated 27 January 2025, calling upon the attorney to peruse and sign off , only the applicant has signed the current practise note, clearly it failed to
obtain any cooperation from the respondent’s legal representatives for the matter on
my opposed roll in February 2 025. The respondent has failed to file heads of
argument.
[3] The respondent was duly sworn in and informed the court that she did not
know , inter alia, what the case was about, although she was represented by her
attorney, she informed me that she appeared in court on this matter for the first time,
after her attorney told her that the matter was on the roll. She denied she owed any
arrear rentals and in fact “ asked the court as to how it is that she continues to return
to live in her home, if she was indeed in arrears with her rental and the applicant was
telling the truth.” Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the matter was in
court on two occasions previously, when he represented the applicant and confirmed that on both occasions , the respondent was present with her attorney and argued
that it is improbable that she does not know what the matter is about. The evidence
is that there have been several applications for postponement , in the past.
1 CL16 -5
[4] The evidence is that the respondent occupies a home on property that is
identified for low cost housing, and it is common cause that the lease agreement
between the parties is cancelled, after the respondent fell into arrears with her rental payments. The respondent is in arrears i n the amount of R 205 888, 48, in June 2022
at commencement of the proceedings she owed R 86 000 , which increased as
applicant continues to live on the property . Having heard her denial on an arrears
amount owing, it was clear to me that she did in fact know what the matter was about, it was not denied that she was in court with her attorney on two previous occasions, and she offered no explanation in regard to her attempts to find alternate housing, she maintained she did not know what the matter was about. I reminded the respondent of the Oath she had taken and its implications , her submission in her
answering affidavit
2 confirms she has full knowledge of this matter. I am of the vi ew
that the respondent was further delaying the finalisation of the matter, and “refused”
to take the court into her confidence. The arrears amount is substantial and in my
view the respondent has been afforded several opportunities by the court to have her say. The matter was previously postponed for the filing of answering papers, which
although filed, do not disclose a defense. She has not presented me with a defense,
she was cognisant of the arrears escalating, with added interest, and knew she was in unlawful occupation of the premises.
[5] The court has a legal obligation to protect the rights of both parties in this
matter. Having weighed the evidence of both parties , the applicant has satisfied me
that the order for eviction is justified and having considered the respondent’s attitude
to the court process and the substance of her matter, it was just and equitable to
order her eviction. I heard counsel for the applicant and agreed it was just and
equitable that she be ordered to vacate the property within three months of my
order.
3 The respondent was provided with an amount in arrears and the date of
eviction, by counsel for the applicant.
Mahomed J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
2 CL 11 -5 par 6
3 2003 (1) SA 11 3 SCA par 123F - 124A , 2021 ZASCA 100 para 27
JOHANNESBURG
MAHOMED J
Date of Hearing: 11 February 2025
Appearances:
For applicants: Adv C E Thompson instructed by
Richen Attorneys
For Respondent: Self representation