Related documents
Loading PDF...
This document is 619.0 KB. Do you want to load it?
History of this document
23 March 1988 this version
Commenced
14 March 1988
Assented to
Cited documents 0
Documents citing this one 9
Gazette
5Judgment
4|
Refusal to postpone and deciding eviction without an opposing affidavit violated PIE's just-and-equitable and audi alteram partem requirements.
Eviction (PIE) – postponement – audi alteram partem – requirement to probe and investigate surrounding circumstances – s4(7) just and equitable enquiry – effect of absence of opposing affidavit – service via attorney – conditional postponement and wasted costs.
|
|
Eviction refused: applicant failed to prove lawful lease termination and required contractual notice, despite substantial compliance with PIE notice.
* PIE Act s4(2),(5),(6) – notice requirements – substantial compliance vs procedural fatality; * Jurisdiction – LRA s157(1) and High Court jurisdiction where unlawfulness of occupation follows contract termination; * Lease interpretation – written lease terms, parol evidence rule, indefinite tenancy terminable by employer with prescribed notice; * Eviction law – applicant’s onus to prove lawful termination and adequate notice before PIE relief; * Collective agreements – employee housing benefits and dispute resolution under bargaining council procedures.
|
|
An estate representative may litigate eviction under PIE, but eviction must be just and equitable considering ubuntu and homelessness risk.
PIE Act – locus standi of Master’s representative with Letters of Authority; unlawful occupier; section 4(7) PIE and ubuntu; homelessness risk and alternative accommodation; effect of Sithole on marital property and intestate succession; costs discretion where Legal Aid represented applicant.
|