| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T17:17:04Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T17:17:04Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2014-01-15 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2014] ZACC 25 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2014 (6) SA 315 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2014 (11) BCLR 1265 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3745 | |
| dc.title | Malan v City of Cape Town | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT143/13 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT143/13 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 20 February 2014 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Majiedt AJ Majority judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Dambuza AJ separate judgment | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Zondo J separate judgment | |
| dc.date.judgment | 18 September 2014 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/3745/Full%20judgment%20Official%20version%20%28408%20Kb%29-22328.pdf?sequence=8&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Lease agreement – public rental housing – right to have access to adequate housing – constitutionality of clauses in public rental housing lease agreement – notice of cancellation – right to be afforded opportunity to rectify breach Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998. Application for leave to appeal against an eviction order granted by the High Court on the basis that the respondent had validly terminated the lease agreement it had with the applicant. The lease was terminated because the applicant was in arrears and conducted illegal activities on the premises. The applicant was refused leave to appeal by the Supreme Court of Appeal. The applicant argued that the High Court erred by granting eviction because it violated her constitutional rights in terms of sections 9 (equality), 10 (dignity) and 26 (right to housing). The applicant also argued that terminating the lease was against public policy. The Court found that the lease agreement had been properly cancelled because the applicant was in arrears and illegal activities were conducted on the premises of which she was aware, but failed to prevent. The Court also found that there was compliance with the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed. Majority: Majiedt AJ (Moseneke ACJ, Skweyiya ADCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J and Van der Westhuizen J concurring). Dissents: Dambuza AJ (Froneman J and Madlanga J concurring) and Zondo J. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Application for leave to appeal against an eviction order granted by the Cape Town High Court. |