[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.17.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”0px||0px||true|false” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.17.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.17.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.17.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Do the courts always adequately consider if their eviction orders are executable? Why is there a growing inconsistency between judgements in eviction matters?<\/p>\n
At the core of the controversy is the discretion a court has when applying the \u201cjust and equitability\u201d requirement in terms of sections 4(7) and (8) of Pie (Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998).<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Do the courts always adequately consider if their eviction orders are executable? Why is there a growing inconsistency between judgements in eviction matters? At the core of the controversy is the discretion a court has when applying the \u201cjust and equitability\u201d requirement in terms of sections 4(7) and (8) of Pie (Prevention of Illegal Eviction […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1146,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-144","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-blog"],"yoast_head":"\n