Padi v Mabusela and Others (A45/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1270 (5 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1270 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Padi v Mabusela and Others (A45/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1270 (5 December 2025) Padi v Mabusela and Others (A45/2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1270 (5 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1270.html sino date 5 December 2025 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: A45/2025 (1)      REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2)      OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO (3)      REVISED: YES/NO DATE 5 December 2025 SIGNATURE In the matter between: EUNICE LESEGO PADI Appellant and BETTY MABUSELA First Respondent ALL OTHER UNLAWFUL OCCUPANTS Second Respondent THE CITY OF THSWANE MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent JUDGMENT JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN J (LABUSHAGNE J concurring) Introduction [1] The appellant brought an application in the Magistrates Court for the district of Madibeng, held at Ga-Rankuwa (“court a quo) for the eviction of the first respondent from a property known as Erf 2[...], (Phase 7), Ga-Rankuwa View Township, North West Province (“the property”) on the basis that she is the registered owner of the property and that the first respondent is in unlawful occupation of the property. [2] The facts given rise to the first respondents’ alleged unlawful occupation of the property are in dispute between the appellant and the first respondent. According to the appellant she entered into a lease agreement with the first respondent, her aunt, during 2006 and an initial amount of R 18 000, 00 was paid towards rent. The appellant stated that, save for the aforesaid amount she never received any further payments in respect of rent. [3] The appellant decided to terminate the lease agreement and instructed the Legal Aid Board to assist her in this regard. In a letter dated 18 August 2022, the first respondent was advised that the appellant cancels any consent to occupy the property and that the first respondent should vacate the property by no later than 30 September 2022. [4] The first respondent did not vacate the property and the appellant proceeded with the eviction application in the court a quo. The first respondent opposed the application and alleged that she purchased the property from the appellant during 2007. The purchase consideration of R 18 000, 00 was paid on 12 June 2007 and the appellant handed over the original Title Deed to the first respondent. [5] Transfer of the property could, for reasons that are not presently relevant, only in law be effected at a later stage. [6] The court a quo dismissed the application on 27 June 2024, and this appeal lies against the judgment and order of the court a quo . Grounds of appeal [7] The appellant, acting in person, raised various grounds of appeal, which can be summarised as follows: 4.1 the judgment was unfair and granted on paper and not in an open court hearing; 4.2 the first appellant never testified under oath regarding the allegations against her; 4.3 the Magistrate failed to conduct due diligence regarding the stolen Title Deed; 4.4 the first respondent could not legally purchase the property as it is an RDP house and, furthermore, there exists no proof of purchase. Judgment and Discussion [8] Having summarised the facts, the court a quo, prior to considering the merits of the application dealt with the appellant’s non-compliance with the provisions of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) and held as follows: “ 2  In the matter in casu there has not been compliance with Section 4(2) of PIE. On this basis alone the application may be dismissed, however, I am of the respectful view that injustice might result if I do not deal with the merits of the application.” [9] The court a quo proceeded to consider the merits of the application and dismissed the application on the merits. [10] Section 4(2) of PIE reads as follows: “ At least 14 days before the hearing of the proceedings contemplated in subsection (1), the court must s erve written and effective notice of the proceedings on the unlawful occupier and the municipality having jurisdiction.” [11]  Section 4(1) of PIE provides that the provisions of section 4(2) apply to all proceedings by an owner of land for the eviction of an unlawful occupier. In Cape Killarney Property Investments (Pty) Ltd v Mahamba and Others 2001 (4) SA 1222 (SCA) the court held that section 4(1) makes the provisions of section 4(2) peremptory. In the result, a court is bound by the provisions of section 4(2) and may not, in the absence of compliance with section 4(2), grant an order for eviction. [11]     The court a quo should, therefore, have dismissed the application for non-compliance with section 4(2) and although the court a quo erred in this regard, the order dismissing the application is correct and is upheld. [12] In the result, the appeal is dismissed. JANSE VAN NIEUWENHUIZEN JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION I concur LABUSCHAGNE J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION DATE HEARD: 2 December 2025 DATE DELIVERED: 5 December 2025 APPEARANCES Appellant:      In person. Respondents:          No appearance sino noindex make_database footer start