Moremi v Moremi and Another

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Schabort J
• Judgment Date: 18 November 1999
• Citation: 2000 (1) SA 936 (W)
• Docket Number: 28370/99
• Counsel: Applicant in person PM Leopeng for the first respondent No appearance for the second respondent
• Court: Witwatersrand Local Division

Schabort J:

The applicant, Pitse Petrus Moremi, launched this application on 12 November 1998 against Martha Matshediso Moremi, as first respondent, and the Greater D Germiston Council, as second respondent, for an order ejecting the first respondent from the dwelling situate on stand 259, Mokoena Section, Katlehong (the premises). The applicant claimed the costs of the application against both respondents, but, in the case of the second respondent, only in the event of the latter opposing the matter. E The second respondent is a local authority with legal capacity to be sued. It succeeded the East Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board.

Only the first respondent is opposing the application.

The references herein to 'the parties' will relate to the applicant and the first respondent only. F

The applicant, an advocate practising in Johannesburg, appeared in person before me and Mr Leopeng appeared as the first respondent's counsel. I was requested to decide the matter with regard to the main dispute between the parties only and every issue not canvassed in this judgment was not required to be determined.

The applicant obtained a residential permit in February 1977 for the G renting of the premises from the East Rand Bantu Affairs Administration Board under the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act 25 of 1945 (the 1945 Act) and the Regulations Governing the Control and Supervision of an Urban Bantu Residential Area and Relevant Matters, as promulgated in Government Notice R1036 of 14 June 1968 (the regulations). The H applicant duly took possession of the premises upon becoming the residential permit holder. Annexure A to the applicant's founding affidavit is a copy of the residential permit. The persons listed in the annexure thereto, being the applicant's dependants authorised to reside on the premises together with him, including his wife, Martha, were no longer living there by the time material to these proceedings. I Martha passed away.

The first respondent was married in community of property to the applicant on 19 June 1979 and took up residence with him on the premises, which was their matrimonial home for many years. It does not appear that her name was entered on the list of the applicant's dependants, but nothing turns thereon now. J

Schabort J

On 9 November 1998 the applicant and the first respondent A were divorced on the basis of a division of their joint estate. Annexure B to the applicant's founding affidavit is a copy of the decree of divorce and annexure B to the first respondent's answering affidavit is a copy of the agreement of settlement which was incorporated therein.

The Black Communities Development Act 4 of 1984 repealed the 1945 Act B in part and what remained operative of it was repealed by the Abolition of Influx Control Act 68 of 1986. This did not disturb the force and validity of the regulations (see Olivier, Pienaar and Van der Walt Statutêre Sakereg (1988) sv 'Swart Grondreg' at 86 - 7; Du Plessis and Olivier 'Okkupasie van Huurpagpersle' (1990) 53 THRHR 618 at 622), which were C only repealed by the Conversion of Certain Rights into Leasehold or Ownership Act 81 of 1988 (the 1988 Act) from 1 January 1989.

The residential permit was not a lease in the true legal sense, although certain expressions used in it and in the regulations pertain to leases. See Moroeng v Roodepoort Municipality 1972 (3) SA 357 (W) at 359C - E. This legal relationship, with the tenure D thereunder, was transformed by the provisions of s 6(1) of the 1988 Act, which from 1 January 1989 conferred on the applicant and the second respondent, respectively, the status of lessee and lessor in respect of the premises, with the rights and obligations set out in s 6(2), viz:

'(2) Subject to any by-laws relating to letting that may apply to the site or accommodation concerned, a lease E contemplated in ss (1) -

(a)

may be terminated by the lessee on three months' notice;

(b)

shall be subject to the payment of rental by the lessee to the lessor in an amount equal to the amount paid by...