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 Number: 2025-029872
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
AFRICA ABLAZE MINISTRIES Applicant
And
REDEMPTION HILL MINISTRIES 1
st Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY 2
nd Respondent
JUDGMENT
STRYDOM, J
[1] The applicant is the registered owner of the immovable property known as Plot
[...], R[…] Road, M[…] , R[…] , Gauteng. Ownership is common cause.
[2] The first respondent occupied the property under a written lease agreement
concluded on or about 31 January 2023, which was later amended to extend
the leased premises and increase the rent. It is undisputed that the first
respondent failed to pay rent in accordance with the lease agreement. As a
result, the applicant validly cancelled the lease.
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES/NO
______________ _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
2
[3] Following the cancellation, the first respondent remained in occupation. Its
continued occupation is unlawful. Proper notice in terms of section 4(2) of the
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of
1998 (“PIE”) was served and is not challenged.
[4] The defences raised by the first respondent do not affect the applicant’s right to
eviction. The authority of the applicant’s representative was accepted by the
first respondent throughout the lease's subsistence and cannot now be
challenged to avoid the consequences of non- payment. Any issues relating to
repairs, improvements, or separate proceedings between the parties do not
confer a right to remain in occupation following a lawful cancellation.
[5] The first respondent is a juristic person occupying the premises for commercial
purposes. No evidence has been presented to this court by any natural person
alleging that the eviction will render them homeless or identifying circumstances
that would justify refusing an eviction order. Allegations made on behalf of
unidentified third parties who have not been joined to these proceedings cannot
be sustained.
[6] Having regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the
occupation, the absence of any valid defence, and the balancing exercise
required by PIE, it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order. Fairness
dictates that the first respondent be afforded a reasonable period to vacate the
property.
[7] Order
a. The first respondent and all persons occupying the property known as Plot
[…] , R […] Road, M […] , R […] , Gauteng, through or under the first
respondent, are evicted from the property.
b. The first respondent and such occupiers shall vacate the property within
30 (thirty) days of the date of this order.
3
c. Failing compliance with paragraph 2, the Sheriff is authorised and directed
to evict the first respondent and such occupiers and to remove their
possessions from the property.
d. The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
___________________________
R. STRYDOM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Heard on: 22 January 2026
Delivered on: 9 February 2026
4
Appearances:
For the Applicant: Adv. L. Seapela
Instructed by: Yakopi Attorneys Inc.
For the 1st Respondent: Mr. H. Collins
Instructed by: In person