eviction rescission - lack of consent - Johannesburg

SERI represents 184 residents of the Kiribilly block of flats (situated at Erven 87 and 88 in Berea, Johannesburg) in a rescission application against an eviction order granted by Justice Khumalo, purportedly by consent, on 10 September 2013.

The residents contend that the eviction order was wrongly granted, in that there was no consent. None of the residents could afford legal representation, and because none who were able to attend court could communicate effectively in English, the residents were represented in court by a member of the City of Johannesburg’s Ward Committee for the inner city area, who was neither an admitted advocate nor an attorney. Instead of obtaining a postponement, he agreed to the residents' eviction, without any authority or mandate to do so.

The Judge in the High Court did not undertake any of the inquiries required by the PIE Act or by the applicable Practice Manual. In particular, she did not ensure that the residents had actually consented to the eviction order, and that their consent was real and informed. Further, she did not satisfy herself that the residents’ eviction would not render them homeless; call for any information relating to the needs of the elderly, disabled persons, children or households headed by women; call for a report from the City on the possible effect of the eviction order on the residents; or adopt the “proactive” approach that should be taken in the exercise of the equitable discretion conferred by section 4 of the PIE Act.

The application for recission was dismissed in the High Court on 12 November 2015.

On 4 February 2016, Justice Mphahlehle handed down judgment preventing the owner of the Kribilly block of flats from evicting the residents until they had an opportunity to appeal against their eviction order. The order allows the occupiers an opportunity to challenge the eviction order.

SERI's application for leave to appeal the judgment was denied by the High Court on 5 February 2016 and later by the Supreme Court of Appeal. SERI was granted leave to appeal by the Constitutional Court, however, and the matter will be argued on 14 February 2017.

  • LRC's heads of argument and practice note (3 Febrauary 2017) here
  • SERI's heads of argument (30 September 2016) here.
  • Constitutional Court directions (1 August 2016) here.
  • SERI's application for leave to appeal (18 May 2016) here.
  • SERI's notice of motion (18 May 2016) here.
  • SERI's founding affidavit in the application for leave to appeal (11 February 2016) here.
  • SERI's notice of motion in the application for leave to appeal (11 February 2016) here.
  • SERI's heads of argument in the application for leave to appeal (5 February 2016) here.
  • SERI's application for leave to appeal (27 November 2015) here.
  • High Court judgment (12 November 2015) here.
  • Residents' heads of argument (10 February 2015) here.