Blue Moonlight Properties v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue

Last updated

Blue Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another, [1] an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Judge Thokozile Masipa [2] on 30 May 2008, with judgment handed down on 12 September.

Contents

Facts

The applicant brought eviction proceedings against the first respondents (the occupiers) in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) [3] [4] The occupiers made a counter-application for an order compelling the second respondent (the city) to provide a report within two months, stating what steps it would take to provide them with temporary emergency accommodation upon their eviction from the property, and what steps it would take to ensure access to adequate housing thereafter. It was argued that there would be no lawful and affordable alternative accommodation available to the occupiers in the event of their being evicted.

The City duly filed a report detailing its programmes and plans in regard to accommodation and land in general. The report was not prepared specifically for the present case and so did not deal specifically with the occupiers of Saratoga Avenue. At the hearing of the matter, the occupiers objected in limine that the city had been improperly joined to the proceedings. The City consented to the joinder on the basis that it would argue the question of joinder as part of the application against it.

Judgment

In respect of the objection in limine, the court held that the question of whether or not it had been appropriate for the occupiers to join the city as a co-respondent could not be entertained, because a court order in which the city was joined had already been granted. That order stood until properly set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction. It did not therefore assist the city to submit that it consented to the joinder on the basis that it would argue the issue later. The objection in limine was dismissed. [5]

The courts are obliged, under PIE, to "have regard to all relevant circumstances," and would in most eviction proceedings be unable to comply with this obligation without comprehensive and specific input from the municipality. [6] The court held that in this case the city's report had failed to assist the court as it should have. The court required specific information in order to deal with the case before it; a generic answer was unacceptable. [7]

The court held further that a municipality is obliged in eviction cases to inform the court of whether or not land had been made available, or could reasonably be made available, for the relocation of the affected unlawful occupiers (as opposed to unlawful occupiers in general). The municipality had to investigate diligently the circumstances of the case and consult with stakeholders where necessary, since the court's hands would be tied without a full and meaningful report from the municipality. [8]

Accordingly, the court ordered the city to report within four weeks on the steps it had taken and could in future take to provide emergency shelter or other housing for the occupiers in the event of eviction. The matter was postponed sine die . [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<i>Kay v Lambeth LBC</i>

Kay v Lambeth London Borough Council; Price and others and others v Leeds City Council [2006] were two, conjoined appeals in the final court of appeal relevant for English property law, UK human rights and English tort law (trespass). It involved claims for possession by two landlords against former short-term occupiers, heavily placing reliance in their defence on article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, with circumstances outwith the other laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007</span> South African provinial law

The KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007 was a provincial law dealing with land tenure and evictions in the province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario is an administrative tribunal in Ontario, Canada that hears and determines applications brought under the Ontario Human Rights Code, the provincial statute that sets out human or civil rights in Ontario prohibiting discrimination on the basis of a number of grounds in certain social areas. It is one of the 13 adjudicative tribunals overseen by the Ministry of the Attorney General that make up Tribunals Ontario. Any person who believes they have been discriminated against under the Human Rights Code may bring an application to the Tribunal.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore administrative law</span> Types of legal orders applicable on Singapore Governments executive branch

The remedies available in Singapore administrative law are the prerogative orders – the mandatory order, prohibiting order (prohibition), quashing order (certiorari), and order for review of detention – and the declaration, a form of equitable remedy. In Singapore, administrative law is the branch of law that enables a person to challenge an exercise of power by the executive branch of the Government. The challenge is carried out by applying to the High Court for judicial review. The Court's power to review a law or an official act of a government official is part of its supervisory jurisdiction, and at its fullest may involve quashing an action or decision and ordering that it be redone or remade.

<i>Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General</i> Singapore legal judgement

Eng Foong Ho v Attorney-General was a 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeal of Singapore, on appeal from a 2008 decision of the High Court. The main issue raised by the case was whether the Collector of Land Revenue had treated the plaintiffs, who were devotees of the Jin Long Si Temple, unequally by compulsorily acquiring for public purposes the land on which the temple stood but not the lands of a Hindu mission and a Christian church nearby. It was alleged that the authorities had acted in violation of Article 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, which guarantees the rights to equality before the law and equal protection of the law.

Lewisham LBC v Malcolm[2008] UKHL 43 was a case concerning disability discrimination and the application of equality legislation in the United Kingdom, relevant for UK labour law. It replaced the head of disability-related discrimination from the DDA 1995 with the Equality Act 2010 section 15 on discrimination arising from disability.

<i>Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd</i>

Progress Property Co Ltd v Moorgarth Group Ltd[2010] UKSC 55 is a UK company law case concerning the circumstances by which a transaction at an undervalue would be considered an unauthorised return of capital.

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] ZACC 7 decided by the Constitutional Court in 2004, is an important case in South African law, with significance especially for post-apartheid property rights and constitutional supremacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 23, 2002, with judgment handed down on August 30.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998</span>

The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which came into effect on 5 June, 1998, and which sets out to prevent arbitrary evictions.

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

Fourway Haulage SA (Pty) Ltd v SA National Roads Agency Ltd is an important case in South African law. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on 5 November 2008, with judgment handed down on 26 November. The judges were Scott JA, Farlam JA, Brand JA, Lewis JA and Jafta JA. JH Dreyer SC appeared for the appellant, and AC Ferreira SC for the respondent.

<i>Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa</i> South African legal case

Kruger v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court (CC) on 19 February 2008, with judgment handed down on 2 October. The judges were Langa CJ, O'Regan ADCJ, Madala J, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van Der Westhuizen J, Yacoob J, Jafta AJ and Kroon AJ. Counsel for the applicant was G. Budlender. There was no appearance for the first respondent, but Wim Trengrove SC appeared for the second and for the third respondent. The applicant's attorneys were Kruger & Co.; the State Attorney represented the second respondent, while the third respondent's attorneys were Brugmans Inc.

Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein.

Pressma Services (Pty) Ltd v Schuttler and Another is an important case in South African labour law, heard in the Cape Provincial Division on 19 April 1989 by Van Schalkwyk AJ, who delivered judgment on 12 September. The applicant's attorneys were Ince, Wood & Raubenheimer; the respondents' attorneys were Lindsay, Schneider & Kawalsky. The case concerned an application in terms of section 424(1) of the Companies Act and argument on a point in limine. RR Horn appeared for the applicant; KAB Engers appeared for the respondent.

Wightman t/a JW Construction v Headfour (Pty) Ltd and Another is an important case in South African law, heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on February 27, 2008. Mpati DP, Cameron JA, Heher JA, Ponnan JA and Mhlantla AJA presided. Judgment was handed down on March 10, 2008. Counsel for the appellant was EJJ Spamer; SC Goddard appeared for the respondents. The appellant's attorneys were Kyriacos & Co, Cape Town, and Webbers, Bloemfontein. The respondents' Attorneys were EQM Hunter, Cape Town, and Honey Attorneys, Bloemfontein. The case was an appeal from a decision of the full bench in the Cape Provincial Division regarding spoliation.

Verstappen v Port Edward Town Board and Others is an important case in South African environmental law, heard on September 29, 1993.

Chartaprops 16 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Silberman is an important case in the South African law of agency. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal by Scott JA, Nugent JA, Ponnan JA, Maya JA and Leach AJA on May 14, 2008. They delivered judgment on September 25. The case was an appeal from a decision in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Boruchowitz J.

References

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2009 (1) SA 470 (W).
  2. ↑ "Experienced, reserved judge for Pistorius trial". Mail & Guardian. 18 February 2014. Retrieved 25 February 2014.
  3. ↑ Act 19 of 1998.
  4. ↑ s 4
  5. ↑ Para 4.
  6. ↑ Para 52.
  7. ↑ Paras 63-64.
  8. ↑ Paras 66, 75.
  9. ↑ Para 78.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.