The court considered an eviction application under PIE involving a settlement agreement that gave the first respondent lifelong occupation of a property, subject to the terms of the agreement. It found that MA3 conferred a subsisting contractual right of occupation which had not been validly terminated, so the first respondent was not an unlawful occupier and the application was dismissed with costs.
This may be relevant to eviction matters under PIE where occupation rights arise from a settlement agreement and the effect of estate insolvency is in issue.
Evidence from source
MA3 confers a subsisting contractual right of occupation which the applicant has not validly terminated.
Supports: plain_summary: the court found the agreement created a continuing occupation right that was not validly terminated.
The first respondent is therefore not an unlawful occupier under PIE. The third respondent occupies through her. The application must be dismissed.
Supports: plain_summary: the respondents were not unlawful occupiers and the application was dismissed.
Eviction under PIE – Settlement agreement granting lifelong occupation of immovable property – Whether agreement constituted a precarium or a contractual right terminable on reasonable notice
Supports: why_it_may_matter and practice_areas: the matter concerns eviction under PIE and the nature of the occupation right.