Case Law[2025] ZAGPJHC 683South Africa
Norvena Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mashamba and Others (2022/018083) [2025] ZAGPJHC 683 (7 July 2025)
High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)
7 July 2025
Judgment
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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2025
>>
[2025] ZAGPJHC 683
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Norvena Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mashamba and Others (2022/018083) [2025] ZAGPJHC 683 (7 July 2025)
Norvena Property Consortium (Pty) Ltd v Mashamba and Others (2022/018083) [2025] ZAGPJHC 683 (7 July 2025)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_683.html
sino date 7 July 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
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE
NO: 2022-018083
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
07
JULY 2025
In
the matter between:
NORVENA
PROPERTY CONSORTIUM (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
MASHAMBA,
THIFHELIMBILU PATSON
First Respondent
THE
OCCUPIERS OF UNIT NUMBER F[...] 2[...],
N[...]
C[...], STAND 5004, C[...] C[...]
STREET
AND P[...] N[...] STREET, HILLBROW
Second Respondent
CITY
OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY
Third Respondent
REASONS
MAHOMED
J
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
applicant applied for eviction of the respondent; it is common cause
that the applicant complied with section 4 (2) of the Prevention
of
Illegal Evictions Act. The matter appeared on my opposed roll and the
proof of service of set down is on file
[1]
[2]
The respondent appeared on the day without her legal
representative and informed the court that although he has been
assisting her
all along for the past five years, it was only on the
day before the hearing that he informed her that he was no longer
available
to represent her. She contended that she did not know the
reasons and requested a postponement of the matter to be allowed to
engage
the services of another attorney. Counsel for the applicant
directed me to proof of service of a draft joint practice note dated
27 January 2025, calling upon the attorney to peruse and sign off,
only the applicant has signed the current practise note, clearly
it
failed to obtain any cooperation from the respondent’s legal
representatives for the matter on my opposed roll in February
2025.
The respondent has failed to file heads of argument.
[3]
The respondent was duly sworn in and informed the court that
she did not know, inter alia, what the case was about, although she
was represented by her attorney, she informed me that she appeared in
court on this matter for the first time, after her attorney
told her
that the matter was on the roll. She denied she owed any arrear
rentals and in fact “
asked the court as to how it is that
she continues to return to live in her home, if she was indeed in
arrears with her rental and
the applicant was telling the truth.”
Counsel for the applicant informed the court that the matter was
in court on two occasions previously, when he represented the
applicant
and confirmed that on both occasions, the respondent was
present with her attorney and argued that it is improbable that she
does
not know what the matter is about. The evidence is that there
have been several applications for postponement, in the past.
[4]
The
evidence is that the respondent occupies a home on property that is
identified for low cost housing, and it is common cause
that the
lease agreement between the parties is cancelled, after the
respondent fell into arrears with her rental payments. The
respondent
is in arrears in the amount of R205 888, 48, in June 2022 at
commencement of the proceedings she owed R86 000,
which increased as
applicant continues to live on the property. Having heard her denial
on an arrears amount owing, it was clear
to me that she did in fact
know what the matter was about, it was not denied that she was in
court with her attorney on two previous
occasions, and she offered no
explanation in regard to her attempts to find alternate housing, she
maintained she did not know
what the matter was about. I reminded the
respondent of the Oath she had taken and its implications, her
submission in her answering
affidavit
[2]
confirms she has full knowledge of this matter. I am of the view that
the respondent was further delaying the finalisation of the
matter,
and “refused” to take the court into her confidence. The
arrears amount is substantial and in my view the respondent
has been
afforded several opportunities by the court to have her say. The
matter was previously postponed for the filing of answering
papers,
which although filed, do not disclose a defense. She has not
presented me with a defense, she was cognisant of the arrears
escalating, with added interest, and knew she was in unlawful
occupation of the premises.
[5]
The
court has a legal obligation to protect the rights of both parties in
this matter. Having weighed the evidence of both parties,
the
applicant has satisfied me that the order for eviction is justified
and having considered the respondent’s attitude to
the court
process and the substance of her matter, it was just and equitable to
order her eviction. I heard counsel for the applicant
and agreed it
was just and equitable that she be ordered to vacate the property
within three months of my order.
[3]
The respondent was provided with an amount in arrears and the date of
eviction, by counsel for the applicant.
Mahomed J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
JOHANNESBURG
MAHOMED
J
Date
of Hearing:
11 February 2025
Appearances:
For
applicants:
Adv C E Thompson instructed by
Richen Attorneys
For
Respondent:
Self representation
[1]
CL16-5
[2]
CL 11-5 par 6
[3]
2003 (1) SA 113
SCA par 123F- 124A,
2021 ZASCA 100
para 27
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Noridane Foods AS v Ribzone (Pty) Limited and Another (21/16389) [2022] ZAGPJHC 516 (4 August 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 516High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)98% similar
Nortiger Logistics SA (Pty) Ltd v Marais NO and Others (14866/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1035 (14 September 2023)
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1035High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)97% similar
Nethonondo and Others v Nathcron CC (44522/2018) [2022] ZAGPJHC 751 (23 September 2022)
[2022] ZAGPJHC 751High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)97% similar
Nuharvest (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mcquarrie N.O (2024/084385) [2025] ZAGPJHC 790 (12 August 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 790High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)97% similar
Nuharvest and Others v Mcquarrie N.O (2024/084385) [2025] ZAGPJHC 953 (19 September 2025)
[2025] ZAGPJHC 953High Court of South Africa (Gauteng Division, Johannesburg)97% similar