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: 031772/25
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED:
DATE 07-05-2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
LUNGILE HAPPINESS SHONGWE First Applicant
LUNGILE HAPPINESS SHONGWE N.O. Second Applicant
and
NTOKOZO PRITCHARDT SHONGWE First Respondent
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS AT 1[...] R[...]
CRESCENT, BLUE VALLEY GOLF AND COUNTRY
ESTATE Second Respondent
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties/their legal
representatives by e -mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
Caselines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be_________________.
JUDGMENT
2
MZUZU, AJ
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed application for the eviction of the first and second
respondents from an immovable property in terms of the Prevention of Illegal
Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act1 (PIE) by the first and second
applicants.
[2] The property forming the subject matter of this opposed application is property
situated at Erf 1[...] K[...] Extension 18 Township situated at 1[...] R[...] Crescent, Blue
Valley Golf and Country Estate, R[...] Road, Centurion.
[3] The first and second respondent s are opposing the application on the basis
that will be mentioned below.
Background
[4] The first applicant was married to the deceased , who passed away in 2021.
The first respondent is the son of the first applicant’s late husband. The deceased
and the first applicant had properties , and among those properties , is the property
that is subject matter. The deceased permitted the first respondent and second
respondent to occupy the property free of charge since 2014 . D uring 202 1, the
deceased passed away and bequeathed the entire estate in Trust to his wife, the first
applicant, in terms of the Will signed by both the deceased and the first applicant.
The very same Will appoints the first applicant to be the executrix.
[5] The first and second respondent s continued to stay in the property even after
the death of the first applicant’s husband. The said property accumulated bills, for
instance, the property was in arrears of rates, taxes, levies , water and electricity
consumption charges.
1 Act 19 of 1998.
3
[6] The first a pplicant alleges that she called a meeting with the first respondent
and his brother to inform them that she will allow the first and second respondents to
occupy the property , and the first respondent should pay the rates, taxes , levies,
water and electricity consumption charges . The first respondent agreed that his
continued occupation of the property rent free was conditional on him paying the
property related expenses for the property.
[7] The respondents did not honour the agreement and continued to stay in the
property without paying rates, taxes, levies , water and electricity consumption
charges.
[8] On 16 December 2023 by way of WhatsApp message to the first respondent,
she requested the first respondent to pay the municipality on the same day the first
respondent agreed, by responding “Okay”. On the 8 September 2024, she
addressed a WhatsApp message to the first respondent addressing the non -
payment of the property expenses, the first respondent again said “Ok”.
[9] The applicants are now applying for the eviction of the first and second
respondent, in her capacity as the executor and co -owner of the property because
now she will not afford the property and they are unable to sell the property because
of the outstanding payment of rates and taxes, levies, water and electricity
consumption charges.
Facts
The applicant’s version in summary is as follows:
[10] Following the death of the first applicant’s husband on the 28 July 2021 , the
first applicant met with the first respondent and his brother, Ayanda Mcberton
Shongwe, her stepson, to discuss the financial implications following her husband ’s
passing.
4
[11] Her husband had been the breadwinner in the family and following his death,
she could no longer afford to pay the property related expenses for all the properties
by herself.
[12] She informed the first respondent and Ayanda that going forward , they could
continue staying in the properties that they resided in rent free, until such time as the
estate of her late husband had been wound up, however, she made it clear that they
were each required to pay for all of the rates, taxes, levies, water and electricity
consumption charges (utilities) in respect of each property that they each reside in.
The first respondent and Ayanda agreed to these conditions.
[13] The first respondent duly remained in occupation of the immovable property in
terms of the agreement, and is still in occupation of the immovable property ,
however:
[14] The first respondent has failed and /or refused and /or neglected to pay all
amounts charged by the third respondent (Municipal ity) every month , and as of 25
October 2024, an amount of R 479 888.63 remained due, owing and payable by the
first respondent in respect of arrear rates, taxes, water, sanitation and waste
management, which charges were incurred during the period of the first respondent’s
occupation of the immovable property.
[15] In addition to the above, the first respondent failed and/or refused and/or
neglected to pay all amounts charged by the Blue Valley Golf and County Estate
Home Owners Association (the Home Owne r’s Association) every month, and as an
at 24 October 2024 an amount of R59 527.61 remained due, owing and payable by
the first respondent in respect of arrear levies, which charges were incurred during
the period of the first respondent’s occupation of the immovable property.
[16] As a result of the breach of the agreement by the fi rst respondent, on the 22
November 2024, the applicants ’ attorney addressed a letter to the first respondent
November 2024, the applicants ’ attorney addressed a letter to the first respondent
and cancelled the arrangement /agreement. I n the l etter, the applicant s’ attorney
5
afforded the first respondent a re asonable period until 31 December 2024 to vacate
the immovable property.
[17] The applicants ’ attorney also demanded payment of the arrear utilities
totalling. R 539 416.24 within five business days thereof (which amount was made
up as R 479 888.63 owing to the municipality , and R 59 527.61 owing to the Home
Owners Association at the time).
[18] The respondents failed to vacate the immovable property and have been in
unlawful occupation of the immovable property since 1 January 2025. Moreover, the
first respondent has failed to pay any portion of the arrear u tilities to her or to the
creditors concerned (the third respondent and the Home Owners Association).
[19] The applicants submitted that the first respondent is a single , 37-year-old
businessman, and the owner of the three successful businesses (Bearded Security
Systems, Silver Solutions and Gung Ho Business Communications). He is more than
capable of paying for the utilities yet shamelessly refuses to do so.
[20] For as long as the first respondent remains in the immovable property, the first
applicant is unable to rent out the immovable property to a prospective t enant to
derive a rental income to settle some of the debt that has been incurred pursuant to
the first respondent’s breach of the agreement.
[21] Moreover, she is unable to sell the immovable property to any prospective
purchaser who would undoubtedly require vacant occupation of the immovable
property on registration of transfer.
[22] Even if she managed to sell the property to a prospective purchaser, she
would be required to pay the arrears incurred by the first respondent to the third
respondent and the Home Owners Association to obtain the necessary clearance
certificate to effect transfer.
[23] She alleges that she has been wholly deprive d of the use and enjoyment of
the immovable property , which she owns, due to the first respondent ’s continued
6
unlawful occupation thereof. As a result , she is suffering great prejudice and it is
therefore just and equitable that an order for the eviction of the first and second
respondents be granted.
[24] The first respondent has adequate means available to him to source
alternative accommodation. As a successful business owner of three separate
businesses, he is well able to afford rental for another property. At the time when the
agreement to pay the utilities was entered into, they averaged approximately R 5 000
per month for the third respondent (municipality) and approximately R 2 000 per
month for the Home Owner’s Association, a total of R 7 000 per month.
[25] The applicant is suffering great prejudice and that it is just and equitable to
grant an order for the eviction of the first and second respondent.
[26] There are several properties in the area (Centurion) which are available for
the first respondent to reside in , by the way of example the first applicant submitted
the following adverts for available properties, a 2 -bedroom apartment situated at
6[...] F[...] Street, Heuwelsig Estate for R6000.00 per month.
[27] A 2 -bedroom apartment situated at Olive Garden, 1[...] R[...] V[...] ,
Olievenhoutbosch, Centurion for R4800.00 per month. A 2 -bedroom apartment
situated at 6[...] L[...] Street Olievenhoutbosch Centurion for R4700.00 per month.
[28] To the best of the first Applicant knowledge, the first respondent is single and
reside alone in the immovable property. As such, to the best of her knowledge there
are no elderly person, children, disable persons and neither is the household headed
by a normal woman whose rights and needs would be unjustifiably infringed or
prejudiced should the first and second respondent be evicted from the immovable
property.
[29] Regardless of any agreement which the first respondent may allege to have
existed between her late husband and himself, any such agreement would have
existed between her late husband and himself, any such agreement would have
lapsed upon the death of her late husband as the property was bequeathed to her in
trust. Had her late husband intended on be nefitting the first respondent, he would
have expressly stipulated in his last Will and Testament. He did not do so.
7
The respondents’ version in summary:
[30] The respondent shares the residence with minor children and the mother is
staying with his brother in another property.
[31] The property was purchased by his late father specifically for his benefit as he
was the first person to occupy same upon completion as it was purchased by his late
father as an incomplete structure.
[32] The first applicant ’s late husband who is the first respondent ’s fathe r knew
that he would occupy the said property with his children and his partner at all
material times.
[33] The first respondent denies the existence of the said oral agreement and
records that he has been residing on the property from 2014 , with his late father ’s
consent.
[34] Accordingly, he contends that he has never been an illegal occupier and that
the first applicant cannot terminate an agreement that does not exist.
[35] Further, he contends that he has never needed to conclude any agreement
with the first applicant on the basis that he occupied the property since 2014 with the
late father’s consent.
[36] A factual and genuine dispute accordingly e xists on whether or not there was
such an oral agreement and whether or not first respondent is an illegal occupier.
Issues in dispute to be determined
[37] Whether it is just and equitable to evict the respondent from the property.
8
The Law and Analysis of Evidence
[38] This is an opposed application in terms of PIE.
[39] It is important to state what the law say s in terms of PIE in respect of the
eviction application.
[40] In the matter of City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 Pty Ltd and
Others,2 in summary, it was held that there are two separate enquiries that must be
undertaken by a court:
“First, it must decide whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order having
regard to all relevant factor s. Under section 4(7) those factors include the availa bility
of alternative land or accommodation. The weight to be attached to that factor must
be assessed in the light of the property owner’s protected rights under section 25 of
the Constitution, and on the footing that a limitation of those rights in favour of the
occupiers will ordinarily be limited in duration . Once the court decides that there is no
defence to the claim for eviction and that it would be just and equitable to grant an
eviction order, it is obliged to grant that order . Before doing so, however, it must
consider what justice and equity demand in relation to the date of implementation of
that order and it must consider what conditions must be attached to that order.
In that second enquiry it must consider the impact of an eviction order on the
occupiers and whether they may be rendered homeless thereby or need emergency
assistance to relocate elsewhere. The order that it grants as a result of these two
discrete enquiries is a single order . A ccordingly, it cannot be granted until both
enquiries have been undertaken and the conclusion reached that the grant of an
eviction order , effective from a specified date , is just and equitable. Nor can the
enquiry be concluded until the court is satisfied that it is in possession of all the
information necessary to make both findings based on justice and equity.”
[41] The Constitutional Court recently affirmed, in Occupiers, Berea v De Wet N O
[41] The Constitutional Court recently affirmed, in Occupiers, Berea v De Wet N O
and Another,3 that the obligation to provide the information relevant to the justice and
2 2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA) at para 25.
3 2017 (5) SA 346 (CC) at para 47.
9
equity enquiry envisaged in section 4 of PIE rests first and foremost on the parties to
the proceedings.
[42] The court , in Madulammoho Housing Association NPC v Nephawe ,4 in
considering the onus and the developing jurisprudence, remarked that:
‘…it is no longer sufficient to approach a court for an eviction order merely on the
basis of the applicant’s ownership or control of the property , and the respondent’s
unlawful occupation. Before an eviction order can be granted, the facts must
demonstrate that it would be just and equitable to make one.
There is accordingly no presumption in favour of granting an eviction order simply
because the applicant has alleged and prove n ownership and unlawful occupation.
Satisfying these requirements does no more than trigger a further enquiry into
whether it would be just and equitable to evict an unlawful occupier. The fact that an
owner is, at common law, entitled to exclusive use and occupation of their property
where there are no other counter -vailing common-law rights held over it is a factor
that counts in favour of granting an eviction order. But it is by no means dispositive of
the issue.”
[43] To make the determination on whether it is just and equitable to evict the
respondents, the court is also enjoined to consider the entrenched provisions of
Section 25 and 26 of the Constitution , which deal with the rights to housing and
property.
[44] The applicant s in the pleadings allege that the first respondent has three
successful businesses and therefore can afford to lease out or to purchase a
property. The first applicant further compiled a list of available accommodation for the
first respondent to reside in . These allegations were not disputed by the first
respondent.
[45] The respondent does not dispute that the applicant is a 50% shareholder of
the property, however, indicated that they are challenging the will.
4 [2023] ZAGPJHC 7 at para 10 – 11.
10
[46] In respect of the agreement, the respondent dispute that there was oral
agreement between him and the applicant , but they fail to explain the What sApp
messages where they replied OK when reminded about payment for municipal
services.
[47] During the hearing of the matter , the first respondent continuously asserted
that it is the owner of the property responsibility, to pay for the rates and taxes, water
and electricity consumption. In other words, it is the responsibility of the first
applicant to ensure that the rates and taxes of the property are paid.
[48] The first applicant gave ample time for the first respondent to mend its breach
of the staying in the property with out paying for the utilities. The only reason the first
respondent is submitting , is that he occup ies the property with the consent of his
father. Unfortunately, the father who consented to the occupation has passed on and
bequeathed the entire estate in Trust to the first applicant and further nominated her
to be the executrix of the entire estate.
[49] The first respondent is vague in terms of the existence of a dispute of fact as
a result I am unable to make a determination to that effect.
Conclusion
[50] It is trite law, the test the court is required to exercise is, whether it is just and
equitable for the respon dent to vacate the property . Weighing both versions of the
applicant and respondent and all the applicable laws mentioned above. The court is
satisfied that it would be just and equitable for the respondent to vacate the property.
[51] Therefore, the court make the following:
Order
1. The first respondent and all occupiers of the property known as Erf 1[...] K[...]
Extension 18 Township, situated at 1[...] R[...] Crescent, Blue Valley Golf and
11
Country Estate, R[...] Road, Centurion (the immovable property) are evicted
from the immovable property.
2. The first respondent and all occupiers of the immovable property are ordered
to vacate the immovable property by 30 July 2026.
3. The sheriff and his/her duly authorised deputies are authorised, directed and
mandated to take all steps necessary to enforce the order in paragraph 1 and
2 above.
Costs
4. The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application on party and
party B scale.
___________________________
N MZUZU
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
Heard on: 23 February 2026
Judgment delivered on: 07 May 2026
For the Applicants: Adv RJ Bouwer
For the Respondents: Mr Lesomo (Lesomo & associate)