- A landlord asked the court to urgently remove a family from a Sandton home after a lease ended.
- He argued that a new tenant would cancel a lease agreement if the property was not vacant in time.
- The High Court ruled that financial loss does not meet the legal requirements for an emergency eviction.
A Johannesburg landlord has lost an urgent court application to remove a family from a Sandton home.
Anish Anil Shivdasani approached the High Court in Johannesburg seeking the urgent eviction of Thomas Mathew Mensah and Rebranding Africa (Pty) Ltd from a property after the termination of a lease agreement. It was undisputed that Mensah occupied the property with his family as their home.
Shivdasani argued that the matter was urgent because he had already concluded a lease agreement with a new prospective tenant. The agreement was subject to the condition that the property would be available for occupation by 28 February 2026. If the property was not vacant by that date, the lease would not continue.
The landlord told the court that he would suffer substantial financial prejudice if the deal fell through and sought relief under Section 5 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.
Requirements for an emergency eviction
Judge R Moultrie explained that the law imposes strict requirements that must be met before a court can grant an urgent eviction order. An applicant must prove a real and imminent danger of substantial injury or damage if the occupiers are not immediately removed.
The court must also consider whether the hardship faced by the owner outweighs the hardship likely to be suffered by the occupiers and whether another effective remedy is available.
The judge noted that the Constitutional Court has previously described these requirements as stringent. After considering the facts, Moultrie found that Shivdasani had failed to establish the first requirement.
Financial loss is not the harm contemplated by the law
The central question was whether the possible loss of rental income and the collapse of a new lease agreement amounted to the type of damage contemplated by Section 5 of the PIE Act. The court concluded that it did not.
The judge said that the only meaningful interpretation of Section 5(1)(a) is that the reference to a danger of substantial injury or damage must be to the danger of substantial physical injury or damage to property, or to a person.
Judge Moultrie accepted that the owner faced the risk of losing the benefits of the new lease agreement. However, he found that the legislation refers to physical injury to people or physical damage to property and not financial loss arising from the infringement of legal or contractual rights.
The judge said that while ownership rights and the ability to lease property could be regarded as valuable property rights, interference with those rights was not the kind of injury or damage contemplated by section 5.
Such loss or inability could not itself constitute the kind of injury or damage that is contemplated in Section 5(1)(a), the judgment reads.
Application dismissed
The court found that no evidence had been presented showing a real and imminent danger of physical harm to any person or physical damage to the property. The applicant was unable to show any real and imminent danger of substantial injury or damage, Judge Moultrie said.
Because the legal requirements for an urgent eviction had not been met, the application was dismissed. The court also ordered Shivdasani to pay the legal costs of Mensah and Rebranding Africa (Pty) Ltd, including the costs of counsel on Scale A.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
