South African Court Protects Property Buyer in Eviction Dispute

The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has overturned an eviction order against a property buyer, Zaiboneza Ahmad, ruling that it would be unjust and inequitable to remove her from a home she had substantially paid for. The court determined that the eviction should not have been granted, despite the seller’s cancellation of the sale agreement.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute originated in July 2015, when Ahmad entered into an agreement to purchase a property in Rhodesfield, Ekurhuleni, from Amar Mazari for approximately R950,000, payable in installments. By May 2019, only about R60,000 of the purchase price remained outstanding. IOL News reports that this represents a substantial portion of the total cost.

Seller’s Cancellation and Eviction Attempt

Mazari subsequently cancelled the agreement, alleging that Ahmad had ceased paying occupational rent in November 2018 and then sought her eviction. Ahmad countered that she withheld payment because Mazari had refused to transfer the property into her name. She also offered to pay the outstanding balance, with the funds held in her attorney’s trust account pending the transfer of ownership.

Lower Court Ruling and Appeal

A lower court initially sided with Mazari, validating the cancellation of the agreement and granting the eviction order. Yet, Ahmad appealed the decision, and the High Court sharply criticized the lower court’s approach.

High Court Decision: “Just and Equitable”

Judge Stuart David James Wilson, writing for a unanimous bench, held that even if the cancellation was legally valid, it did not automatically justify eviction. The court emphasized that under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, courts must determine whether eviction is “just and equitable” in all the circumstances. South African Legal Information Institute (SAFLII) details the case as Ahmad v Mazari (A2022/048458) [2026] ZAGPJHC 269.

The court found that the lower court had entirely overlooked this crucial step, failing to consider the fairness and justice of evicting Ahmad after she had paid the vast majority of the purchase price and remained willing to settle the outstanding amount. The court also highlighted protections offered by the Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981, which allows a purchaser who has paid at least half the purchase price to demand transfer of the property with security for the remaining balance.

Unjust Outcome Avoided

The High Court reasoned that allowing the eviction to stand would leave Ahmad without either the home she purchased or the money used to purchase it, deeming this outcome “unjust and inequitable.” The court ruled that Mazari had failed to demonstrate that eviction was just and equitable, as required by law.

Appeal Upheld

The appeal was upheld with costs, and the eviction order was set aside, replaced with a dismissal of Mazari’s application. Even as acknowledging potential disputes over the exact amount owed, the court stated that these issues could be resolved through separate legal proceedings. The central question before the court – whether eviction was justified – was answered with a definitive “no.”