62:(PIE) 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.
84:, 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
95:
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
91:
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. The court held that in this case the city's report had failed to assist
65:
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
99:
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
149:
59:
96:
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.
72:
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.
277:
272:
92:
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.
282:
178:
115:
28:
136:
102:
43:
31:
68:
39:
266:
35:
25:
133:
Blue
Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another
21:
Blue
Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another
58:
proceedings against the first respondents (the occupiers) in terms of the
55:
150:
Prevention of
Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
60:
Prevention of
Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
179:"Experienced, reserved judge for Pistorius trial"
46:, with judgment handed down on 12 September.
8:
161:
7:
14:
278:South African property case law
273:2008 in South African case law
1:
80:In respect of the objection
299:
116:South African property law
38:Local Division by Judge
16:South African legal case
24:, an important case in
283:Gauteng Division cases
54:The applicant brought
168:2009 (1) SA 470 (W).
183:Mail & Guardian
34:, was heard in the
185:. 18 February 2014
290:
258:
255:
249:
246:
240:
237:
231:
228:
222:
219:
213:
210:
204:
201:
195:
194:
192:
190:
175:
169:
166:
40:Thokozile Masipa
298:
297:
293:
292:
291:
289:
288:
287:
263:
262:
261:
256:
252:
247:
243:
238:
234:
229:
225:
220:
216:
211:
207:
203:Act 19 of 1998.
202:
198:
188:
186:
177:
176:
172:
167:
163:
159:
146:
129:
124:
112:
88:was dismissed.
78:
52:
17:
12:
11:
5:
296:
294:
286:
285:
280:
275:
265:
264:
260:
259:
250:
241:
232:
223:
214:
205:
196:
170:
160:
158:
155:
154:
153:
145:
142:
141:
140:
128:
125:
123:
120:
119:
118:
111:
108:
77:
74:
51:
48:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
295:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
271:
270:
268:
254:
251:
248:Paras 66, 75.
245:
242:
236:
233:
227:
224:
218:
215:
209:
206:
200:
197:
184:
180:
174:
171:
165:
162:
156:
151:
148:
147:
143:
138:
134:
131:
130:
126:
121:
117:
114:
113:
109:
107:
105:
104:
97:
93:
89:
87:
83:
75:
73:
71:
70:
63:
61:
57:
49:
47:
45:
41:
37:
36:Witwatersrand
33:
30:
27:
26:South African
23:
22:
253:
244:
239:Paras 63-64.
235:
226:
217:
208:
199:
187:. Retrieved
182:
173:
164:
132:
101:
98:
94:
90:
85:
81:
79:
67:
64:
53:
20:
19:
18:
189:25 February
152:19 of 1998.
267:Categories
122:References
42:on 30 May
135:2009 (1)
86:in limine
82:in limine
69:in limine
257:Para 78.
230:Para 52.
144:Statutes
139:470 (W).
110:See also
103:sine die
76:Judgment
56:eviction
29:property
221:Para 4.
157:Notes
127:Cases
50:Facts
191:2014
44:2008
212:s 4
32:law
269::
181:.
137:SA
106:.
193:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.