Monetary limit on jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in eviction cases

The Miya v Matleko-Seifert 2023 (1) SA 208 (GJ) case dealt with an appeal against a magistrates’ court eviction order to the High Court. One of the grounds of the appeal was that the magistrate court did not have jurisdiction to grant the order since the monetary value of right of occupation of the property in question exceeded the district court’s jurisdiction under S29(1)(b) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944, which was R 200 000 at the time.

The appellant’s contended for right to occupy arose from her claimed right to ownership of the property, the capital value of which rendered the value of disputed right of occupation more than R 200 000. The respondent argued that Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act) nonetheless conferred jurisdiction on a magistrates’ court to grant an eviction order, even if otherwise beyond the jurisdiction established by s 29(1)(b) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

The GJ (Gilbert AJ (Manoim J concurring)) held that s 9 of PIE Act expanded the magistrates’ court’s jurisdiction by expressly providing that: ‘Notwithstanding any provision of any other law, a magistrate’s court has jurisdiction to issue any order … authorized by the provisions of [the PIE] Act’. A magistrates’ court would, therefore, have jurisdiction to grant an eviction order in terms of s 4 of the PIE Act regardless of the value of the disputed right of occupation, provided that the property was in its area of jurisdiction and the eviction sought fell within the ambit of the PIE Act.