Cape Killarney Property Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Mahamba and Others

The appellant owned Doornbach Farm, an industrial-zoned property occupied by an informal settlement consisting of 542 dwellings. The respondents occupied the land without the owner’s consent and were alleged to be unlawful occupiers under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The appellant obtained an ex parte order in the High Court issuing a rule nisi calling upon the respondents to show cause why they should not be evicted, together with directions regulating service and truncated procedural time periods. One occupier, Ms Tshofuti, acting on behalf of the respondents, applied in terms of Uniform Rule 6(12)(c) for reconsideration and setting aside of the ex parte order. The High Court set aside the original order and discharged the rule nisi, holding that the procedural requirements of section 4 of PIE had not been met. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The order of the High Court setting aside the original eviction order and discharging the rule nisi was confirmed.

The case is a leading authority on the interpretation and application of section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act. It clarifies that PIE creates mandatory, constitutionally informed procedural safeguards that supplement, rather than replace, the Uniform Rules of Court, and that eviction proceedings cannot be initiated through ex parte substantive orders. The judgment reinforces the protection of unlawful occupiers’ rights under section 26(3) of the Constitution.