2
Unit A318, City Centre, 2 Central Lane, Steyn City (“the property”) through or
under the first respondent, directly, indirectly or otherwise, are hereby evicted
from the property.
[2] The first respondent and all persons referred to in paragraph 1 are ordered to
vacate the property by no later than Monday, 4 May 2026.
[3] In the event that the persons described in paragraph 1 have not vacated the
property by Monday, 4 May 2026, the Sheriff of this Court is authorised and
directed to carry out the eviction on or after Monday, 11 May 2026, and may, if
necessary, employ the assistance of the South African Police Service.
[4] The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application on the party
and party scale B.
JUDGMENT
GARVEY AJ
[1] This is an application for the eviction of the first respondent and all persons
occupying through or under him from immovable property known as Section
1318, Portion 105 of Erf 4, Riverglen Township, also described as Unit A318,
City Centre, 2 Central Lane, Steyn City ( “the property ”). The application is
brought in terms of section 4(1) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and
Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 ( “the PIE Act ”). The facts are
straightforward and the matter admits of a short judgment.
[2] In short:
(a) The applicant, Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd, is the registered owner of
the property. This is not in dispute.
3
(b) The applicant and the first respondent concluded a written lease
agreement on 31 May 2023 for a period of two years commencing 1 June
2023 and expiring 31 May 2025, at a monthly rental of R23 840.00
escalating annually at 7.5%.
(c) The first respondent fell into arrears. A letter of demand was sent on 13
February 2024, followed by cancellation notices on 19 and 20 March
2024. The first respondent failed to vacate.
(d) The lease, in any event, expired by effluxion of time on 31 May 2025. It
was not renewed. There is no extant lease agreement between the
parties. This was conceded during argument by Mr Zwane, who
appeared for the first respondent.
(e) As at June 2025, arrear rental stood at R463 574.65. This amount
continues to escalate. No proof of any payment was placed before this
Court.
[3] The procedural history of the matter was protracted. The first respondent filed
a notice of intention to oppose but failed to deliver an answering affidavit
timeously. The matter was removed from the roll on 19 March 2025. The first
respondent was ordered to deliver his answering affidavit by 28 March 2025 but
failed to comply. When the matter was set down again on 19 June 2025, the
first respondent belatedly filed his answering affidavit on the very day of the
hearing, which necessitated a postponement. The applicant delivered its reply
on 3 July 2025. The matter came before me on 16 March 2026.
[4] In his answering affidavit, the first respondent alleged that he had been making
rental payments and denied being in breach. However, Mr Zwane conceded
during argument that no evidence whatsoever, no receipts, no bank statements,
no proof of electronic transfers was produced to substantiate this allegation.
The bare denial does not constitute a defence. No sustainable defence of any
kind was raised.
4
[5] I am satisfied that the requirements of section 4 of the PIE Act have been met.
The first respondent has been aware of these proceedings since at least
October 2024 and has been represented by attorneys throughout. Any
suggestion of prejudice arising from inadequate notice is untenable.
[6] I am accordingly satisfied that the first respondent is an unlawful occupier as
defined in the PIE Act, and that a proper case for eviction has been made out.
[7] Turning to the question of what is just and equitable. The first respondent
indicated in his answering affidavit that he resides at the property with his life
partner, minor children and an unemployed adult child. There is some
inconsistency in the papers as to the number of minor children, but I accept for
present purposes that minor children reside at the property. No evidence was
adduced that any elderly or disabled persons occupy the property.
[8] The presence of minor children is a relevant factor but does not constitute an
absolute bar to eviction. The first respondent described himself as a
“businessman” and agreed at the inception of the lease to pay a monthly rental
of R23 840.00 for a unit in an affluent residential estate. There are, on his own
version, at least three adults at the property. No substantiated evidence of
financial hardship or inability to secure alternative accommodation was placed
before the Court. I am entitled to draw the inference that the bald assertions of
inability to relocate are not credible.
[9] The applicant’s prejudice, on the other hand, is substantial and continues to
mount. The first respondent has been in occupation without paying rental for
more than two years since the initial cancellation in March 2024 and for
approximately ten months since the lease expired. This prejudice far outweighs
the inconvenience of having to find alternative accommodation.
[10] Having considered all the relevant circumstances, I am satisfied that it is just
and equitable to order the eviction.
5
[11] As to the date for vacation, the first respondent has been aware of these
proceedings for approximately 17 months. The cancellation notices were
served over two years ago. He has had ample opportunity to make
arrangements. Considering the presence of minor children, I consider that a
period until the end of April 2026 is reasonable. Since 30 April 2026 falls on a
Thursday and 1 May 2026 is a public holiday, the first respondent and all
persons occupying through or under him must vacate by no later than Monday,
4 May 2026.
[12] As to costs, the applicant sought a punitive costs order on the attorney and
client scale. The lease agreement is silent on costs, and I am not persuaded
that the first respondent’s conduct, while dilatory, warrants such an order.
During argument, costs on the party and party scale B were agreed to by the
parties’ respective representatives. That is appropriate.
ORDER
The following order is made:
[1] The first respondent and all persons occupying the immovable property known
as Section 1318, Portion 105 of Erf 4, Riverglen Township, Gauteng (“the
property”) through or under the first respondent, directly, indirectly or otherwise,
are hereby evicted from the property.
[2] The first respondent and all persons referred to in paragraph 1 are ordered to
vacate the property by no later than Monday, 4 May 2026.
[3] In the event that the persons described in paragraph 1 have not vacated the
property by Monday, 4 May 2026, the Sheriff of this Court is authorised and
directed to carry out the eviction on or after Monday, 11 May 2026, and may, if
necessary, employ the assistance of the South African Police Service.