Gauteng High Court protects buyer from unjust eviction after substantial payment.
Image: File
THE South Gauteng High Court has overturned an unjust eviction order against Zaiboneza Ahmad, ruling that her significant investment in the property must be recognised.
The court found that the eviction of Ahmad and other occupants of a Rhodesfield property in Ekurhuleni should never have been granted in the first place, despite the seller’s cancellation of the sale agreement.
The dispute dates back to July 2015, when Ahmad entered into an agreement to purchase the property from Amar Mazari for approximately R950,000, payable in instalments. By May 2019, only about R60,000 of the purchase price remained outstanding.
Mazari later cancelled the agreement, claiming that Ahmad had stopped paying occupational rent in November 2018. He subsequently sought her eviction.
Ahmad, however, argued that she withheld payment only because Mazari had refused to transfer the property into her name. She also tendered to pay the outstanding balance, stating that the funds had been secured in her attorney’s trust account pending transfer.
A lower court sided with Mazari, finding that the agreement had been validly cancelled and granting an eviction order.
However, on appeal, the High Court sharply criticised that approach.
Writing for a unanimous bench, Judge Stuart David James Wilson held that even if the cancellation was valid, that alone did not justify eviction. Under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, courts must go further and determine whether eviction is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances.
“The unlawfulness of occupation is only the starting point,” the court emphasised, noting that eviction proceedings require a broader consideration of fairness and justice.
The judges found that this crucial step had been entirely overlooked by the lower court.
Importantly, the court highlighted that Ahmad had already paid the vast majority of the purchase price and remained willing to settle the outstanding amount. It also pointed to protections under the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, which entitles a purchaser who has paid at least half of the purchase price to demand transfer of the property against security for the balance.
In these circumstances, the court found that evicting Ahmad would lead to a deeply unfair outcome.
“If the order is left to stand, Ms Ahmad will be left with neither the home she purchased nor the money she used to purchase it,” the judgment stated. “That would be unjust and inequitable.”
The court further ruled that Mazari had failed to meet the legal burden of proving that eviction was just and equitable, as required by law.
While acknowledging that there may still be a dispute over the exact amount owed, the court noted that such issues could be resolved in separate legal proceedings. The only question before it was whether eviction was justified — and the answer was a clear no.
The appeal was upheld with costs, and the eviction order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing Mazari’s application.