Magaiza and Another v Manzana and Others (2022-18440) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 (16 October 2023)

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 >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Magaiza and Another v Manzana and Others (2022-18440) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 (16 October 2023) Magaiza and Another v Manzana and Others (2022-18440) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1239 (16 October 2023) Download original files RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1239.html sino date 16 October 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2022-18440 NOT REPORTABLE NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED 16/10/23 In the matter between: MAGAIZA, CHARLES 1 ST APPLICANT MAGAIZA, JULIANA IPAISHE 2 ND APPLICANT And MANZANA, BUSISIWE 1 ST RESPONDENT ALL OTHER OCCUPIERS OF 30 INYANGA, 2 SIMBA ROAD, SUNNINGHILL 2 ND RESPONDENT THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 3 RD RESPONDENT JUDGMENT WRIGHT J 1. The applicants own an immovable residential property. The 1st respondent woman, who has an eight year old son, rented the property. The applicants cancelled the lease for want of payment of rent. They seek the eviction of the respondent and any other unlawful occupiers. 2. The application was launched within a month of the respondent being required, post cancellation of the lease, to vacate. Hence, section 4(6) of PIE applies. The Municipality has been cited and served with the application. 3. The respondent admits falling behind with rent. She says that her business suffered because of covid and its lockdown. She says that she is currently unemployed. In court, before me, Ms Manzana said that she is an admitted attorney. She sought a postponement on the basis that her advocate was not available until next year. Ms Manzana told me from the Bar that she last paid rent in 2021. 4. She says that the applicants are illegal foreigners and that for this reason they have no legal standing to evict her. This defence is not readily understood. The applicants deny these allegations. 5. Ms Manzana says that because the applicants were illegal foreigners the agreement under which they bought the property is illegal and that the bondholder, Nedbank should have been joined in the present application. Ms Manzana confirmed in open court that there is a bond over the property and that the applicants are the owners. 6. Ms Manzana submitted repeatedly in argument that her lease was null and void. 7. I asked Ms Manzana how she could stay on the property if her lease was invalid. She quite understandably had no answer. She said that she has a claim against the applicants for money paid to them as rent. Ms Manzana suggested that she can’t be evicted if Nedbank has not been joined. I disagree. It is difficult to see how Nedbank has a legal interest in an eviction. It may be that Nedbank had an interest in the lease in the first place, if Ms Manzana is correct. 8. The respondent says that strange men harassed her, apparently in an attempt to evict her. The applicants deny knowledge of this. 9. The applicants bought the property some years ago as an investment and they claim financial loss caused by the respondent’s continued occupation and non-payment of rent. 10. The respondent does not say, in her two answering affidavits, that she or her son will be rendered homeless by an eviction. The rent that the respondent was paying was, at one stage, R9 975 per month. This is by no means at the bottom end of the market. It would appear that the respondent, if evicted can afford other accommodation. Ms Manzana stated from the Bar that she and her son will be homeless if an eviction is ordered. This allegation is not found in either answering affidavit, including a supplementary affidavit filed a month ago. In my view, Ms Manzana will not be rendered homeless by the order sought. 11. The City has not done a report on alternative accommodation as section 4(6) of PIE applies, rather than section 4(7). 12. There is no defence to the application and it is just and equitable that those in occupation be evicted. To postpone the matter now would be unfair to the applicants. ORDER 1. X – GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  16 October 2023 DELIVERED :   16 October 2023 APPEARANCES  : APPLICANTS Adv Baheeyah Bhabha 083 291 2873 Instructed by Bruno Simao Attorneys 011 234 0831 RESPONDENTS Busisiwe Manzana busimnzn@gmail.com 083 959 0633/079 049 3970 sino noindex make_database footer start