Mr Isaac Rasepitle Pitje, a 76-year-old man in ill-health, occupied his lifelong family home in Mamelodi, Pretoria. The property had been registered in his brother’s name, but in 2001 Mr Pitje agreed to purchase it from the brother and took over bond payments to Nedcor Bank. Despite this, in 2009 the brother sold the same property to Mr and Mrs Shibambo, who obtained transfer in 2010. The Shibambos sought and obtained an eviction order against Mr Pitje in the High Court. After rescission of a default eviction order, the High Court again granted eviction, finding the Shibambos to be bona fide purchasers and holding that the requirements of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) had been met. Mr Pitje appealed to the Constitutional Court, contending that PIE had not been properly applied and that eviction would render him homeless.
The appeal was upheld. The High Court eviction order was set aside. Mr Pitje was granted leave to file a rejoinder affidavit. The matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with PIE, and costs were ordered to follow the result of the reconsideration.
The case reinforces that compliance with PIE is mandatory in all eviction proceedings, even where ownership is undisputed. It affirms the constitutional duty of courts to conduct an active, substantive enquiry into justice and equity, particularly where eviction may result in homelessness of vulnerable persons. The judgment clarifies that property law doctrines such as bona fide purchase do not override constitutional housing protections.