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 No: 005225/2025
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
SIGNATURE
Date: 4 December 2025
In the matter between:
CROWNED CRANE COURT (PTY) LTD 1st Applicant
and
LUVUYO LONSDALE NDIMENI 1st Respondent
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF UNIT 2[…], 2nd Respondent
THE REGENCY, 2[…] M[...] ROAD,
ASHLEA GARDENS, PRETORIA
THE CITY OF TSHWANE 3rd Respondent
METROPLOTITAN MUNICIPALITY
JUDGEMENT
MOOKI J
1 The applicant seeks an order that the first and second respondents be evicted
from Unit 2[...] in the Scheme the Regency, Sectional Scheme Number: 440/2018,
measuring 92 (ninety-two) square metres, held under deed of transfer S[...], situated
at 2[…] M[...] Road, Ashlea Gardens, Pretoria (the premises).
2 The premises are registered in the name of the applicant. Eviction is sought in
terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
19 of 1998. The applicant complied with the formal requirements under the statute.
3 The first respondent (Mr Ndimeni) is the sole occupant of the premises. The
applicant purchased the premises on 25 July 2023. Transfer was effected to the
applicant on 30 November 2023. Mr Ndimeni had an interest in the premises. He
signed an agreement with the then owner of the premises in relation to the premises.
The agreement stipulated that transfer take place by 15 December 2017. Transfer
did not take place. The applicant subsequently acquired the p remises as indicated
above.
4 Mr Ndimeni owns a sectional unit in the same body corporate where the
premises are situated. He, however, resided in a different unit, also in the same body
corporate. Mr Ndimeni relocated to Kwazulu -Natal sometime in May 20 21, after
contracting Covid -19. His case is that a representative of the body corporate
approached him, when he was in Kwazulu -Natal, requesting that he (Mr Ndimeni)
allow a Mr Suren Singh to occupy Mr Ndimeni's unit. He agreed. This was meant to
be a temporary arrangement, with Mr Singh's occupation to last six months.
5 Mr Ndimeni says he agreed to the arrangement because he had built a trust
relationship with the body corporate over several years. The agreement was to
commence on 30 July 2021. Mr Ndimeni returned to the body corporate in 2022. Mr
Singh was still in occupation, despite that being long after the agreed six months. Mr
Ndimeni says the erstwhile managing agent of the body corporate offered him "the
Ndimeni says the erstwhile managing agent of the body corporate offered him "the
right to reside in Apartment 13". This was t o last until the dispute with Mr Singh had
been resolved and Mr Singh evicted.
6 The erstwhile managing agent of the body corporate, according to Mr Ndimeni,
advised in June 2022 that Mr Ndimeni was to be evicted from apartment 1 […]. It was
then verbally agreed on 23 June 2022 that Mr Ndimeni would occupy apartment 2[...].
This verbal agreement, according to Mr Ndimeni, was reached at a meeting with the
erstwhile managing agent of the body corporate and a Mr Ettiene Kruger. The verbal
agreement was that Mr Ndimen i would occupy the premises pending finalisation of
proceedings to evict Mr Singh.
7 The body corporate, in the meanwhile, instituted proceedings to have Mr
Ndimeni's apartment declared specially executable. Mr Ndimeni is in default of
paying levies in relation to the apartment.
8 Mr Ndimeni says he paid a substantial deposit to purchase unit 2[...]. A Mr
Abraham Rossouw gave Mr Ndimeni keys to the premises. Mr Rossouw, according
to Mr Ndimeni, advised that Mr Ndimeni had the right to occupy the premises
pending payment of the final amount for the premises. Mr Ndimeni contends that he
was given the right to occupy the premises in 2017. He says that he has never been
informed that his agreement of sale had been cancelled.
9 Mr Ndimeni contends that there is a d ispute regarding ownership of the
premises. He further says that he is entitled to occupy the premises because of his
agreement with the body corporate.
10 Mr Ndimeni denies that the applicant owns the premises. He says it is not just
and equitable to be e victed when he occupies the property "by consent." He denies
being in unlawful occupation, because "I am residing in the residence with consent of
the managing body of the Regency following my R 1.6 million deposit. I am advised
that huur gaat voor koop."
11 Mr Ndimeni, apart from denying that the applicant has shown that he is to be
evicted, also contends that there are disputes of fact in relation to the premises and
that those disputes be referred for oral evidence.
Analysis
12 No submissions were made against the applicant's claim that the applicant
owns the premises. This was a sound approach, given evidence marshalled by the
applicant to establish its ownership of the premises.
13 Mr Ndimeni is not in occupation with the co nsent of the owner of the premises.
I do not accept his contention that he occupies the premises with the consent of the
body corporate. There is no evidence that the body corporate has entitlement to the
premises such that the body corporate could have gr anted Mr Ndimeni a right to
occupy the premises.
14 Mr Ndimeni ascribed various acts to several people, none of whom gave
evidence or gave confirmatory affidavits. Mr Ndimeni thus failed to establish a basis
in law for his contention that he occupies the p remises with consent. Mr Ndimeni is
thus an unlawful occupier in law.
15 Mr Ndimeni did not put up evidence that he would suffer any particular
hardship should he be evicted. He owns property in the same sectional title scheme,
albeit the property is subje ct to proceedings by the body corporate. The fact of the
body corporate seeking to have Mr Ndimeni's unit declared specially executable
does not militate against granting his eviction. His dispute with the body corporate
pertains to his failure to pay levi es for his unit. Mr Ndimeni did not contend that he
would be rendered homeless should he be evicted.
16 I conclude that the applicant has made out a case for the eviction of Mr
Ndimeni. The date for the eviction will be effective at midnight, on 31 December
2025. I have considered that this application was heard almost at the end of the year.
Eviction as indicated will give Mr Ndimeni sufficient time to attend to his affairs.
17 I make the following order:
(1) The First Respondent and/or the Second Respo ndent and all those
occupying through or under them, together with all movables, are to be
ejected from the Property described as Unit 2[…] in the Scheme the Regency,
Sectional Scheme number: 440/2018, Measuring 92 (Ninety Two square
meters, held by deed of transfer S[...] and situated at 2[…] M[...] Road, Ashlea
Gardens, Pretoria, Gauteng ("the Property");
(2) The First Respondent and/or the Second Respondent and all those
occupying through or under them must vacate the Property one (1) calendar
month after the service of this order;
(3) In the event of the First Respondent and/or the Second Respondent
and all those occupying through or under them fail to vacate the Property as
set out in prayer 2 above, that the Sheriff of this Honourable Court is
authorised and ordered to eject the First Respondent and/or the Second
Respondent and all those occupying through or under them together with any
movables from the Property;
(4) That the First Respondent be ordered to pay the costs of this
application on the High Court Scale B.
O MOOKI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Counsel for the applicant: A Huhlwane
Instructed by: Carreira and Associates Inc
Counsel for the first respondent: X van Niekerk
Instructed by: Pistorius Scheepers Attorneys Inc
Date heard: 12 November 2025
Date of judgment: 4 December 2025