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: A45/2025
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
DATE 5 December 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
EUNICE LESEGO PADI Appellant
and
BETTY MABUSELA First Respondent
ALL OTHER UNLAWFUL OCCUPANTS Second
Respondent
THE CITY OF THSWANE MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
JUDGMENT
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J (LABUSHAGNE J concurring)
Introduction
[1] The appellant brought an application in the Magistrates Court for the district of
Madibeng, held at Ga -Rankuwa (“court a quo) for the eviction of the first
respondent from a property known as Erf 2[...], (Phase 7), Ga -Rankuwa View
Township, North West Province (“the property”) on the basis that she is the
registered owner of the property and that the first respondent is in unlawful
occupation of the property.
[2] The facts given rise to the first respondents’ alleged unlawful occupation of the
property are in dispute between the appellant and the first respondent.
According to the appellant she entered into a lease agreement with the first
respondent, her aunt, during 2006 and an initial amount of R 18 000, 00 was
paid towards rent. The appellant stated that, save for the aforesaid amount she
never received any further payments in respect of rent.
[3] The appellant decided to terminate the lease agreement and instructed the
Legal Aid Board to assist her in this regard. In a letter dated 18 August 2022,
the first respondent was advised that the appellant cancels any consent to
occupy the property and that the first re spondent should vacate the property by
no later than 30 September 2022.
[4] The first respondent did not vacate the property and the appellant proceeded
with the eviction application in the court a quo. The first respondent opposed the
application and alleged that she purchased the property from the appellant
during 2007. The purchase consideration of R 18 000, 00 was paid on 12 June
2007 and the appellant handed over the original Title Deed to the first
respondent.
[5] Transfer of the property could, for reasons that are not presently relevant, only
in law be effected at a later stage.
[6] The court a quo dismissed the application on 27 June 2024, and this appeal lies
against the judgment and order of the court a quo.
Grounds of appeal
[7] The appellant, acting in person, raised various grounds of appeal, which can be
summarised as follows:
4.1 the judgment was unfair and granted on paper and not in an open court
hearing;
4.2 the first appellant never testified under oath regarding the allegations
against her;
4.3 the Magistrate failed to conduct due diligence regarding the stolen Title
Deed;
4.4 the first respondent could not legally purchase the property as it is an RDP
house and, furthermore, there exists no proof of purchase.
Judgment and Discussion
[8] Having summarised the facts, the court a quo, prior to considering the merits of
the application dealt with the app ellant’s non-compliance with the provisions of
section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation
of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) and held as follows:
“2 In the matter in casu there has not been compliance with Section 4(2) of
PIE. On this basis alone the application may be dismissed, however, I am of
the respectful view that injustice might result if I do not deal with the merits of
the application.”
[9] The court a quo proceeded to consider the merits of the application and
dismissed the application on the merits.
[10] Section 4(2) of PIE reads as follows:
“At least 14 days before the hearing of the proceedings contemplated in
subsection (1), the court must serve written and effective notice of the
proceedings on the unlawful occupier and the municipality having jurisdiction.”
[11] Section 4(1) of PIE provides that the provisions of section 4(2) apply to all
proceedings by an owner of land for the eviction of an unlawful occupier. In
Cape Killarney Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mahamba and Others 2001 (4)
SA 1222 (SCA) the court held that section 4(1) makes the provisions of section
4(2) peremptory. In the result, a court is bound by the provisions of section 4(2)
and may not, in the absence of compliance with section 4(2), grant an order for
eviction.
[11] The court a quo should, therefore, have dismissed the application for non -
compliance with section 4(2) and although the court a quo erred in this regard,
the order dismissing the application is correct and is upheld.
[12] In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
I concur
LABUSCHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
DATE HEARD:
2 December 2025
DATE DELIVERED:
5 December 2025
APPEARANCES
Appellant: In person.
Respondents: No appearance
6