Despite not having the enjoyment of a property he bought, a Parklands homeowner has hope to move into his home after an inherited illegal occupier was evicted by the Western Cape High Court.
Earlier this week, the high court issued an eviction order against a woman who refused to move from the home that she and her estranged husband and their children lived in.
The new homeowner, who has paid a monthly bond of R21 000 since transfer, purchased the property at a sale in execution that was held on January 31, 2023, but since then had no enjoyment of his property as the woman refused to vacate.
Extending an olive branch to the woman, and to not have the woman rendered homeless, the new homeowner offered to pay a deposit for her to rent an alternative residence, as well as to pay for two months’ rental. However, the woman denied the hand of charity extended to her.
InJuly last year, a magistrate court issued an eviction order against the woman but she approached the high court to appeal against that order while she remained living at the property.
The high court has upheld the decision of the magistrate court and now ordered her to vacate the property by no later than April 28, and failing this, the Sheriff of the court has been authorised and directed to evict the occupiers by April 30.
Acting Judge Philippa van Zyl said the single mother’s “belated attempt at postponing the hearing of the appeal was aimed at delaying the inevitable”, as she had known since 2021 that the property would have to be sold because it was no longer affordable.
During court proceedings, it noted that the woman had the use of the property while “she did not pay anything towards the rental or upkeep thereof” despite the new homeowner communicating to her that access was needed to conduct maintenance and plans for renovations.
During litigation, the woman attempted to add her estranged husband to the court proceedings claiming that he had a “duty of support” to avoid her being rendered homeless.
Living at the property with her partner, the estranged couple’s adult and minor children, the woman sought for her estranged husband to pay for alternative accommodation.
Judge Van Zyl said: “The basis for this ground of appeal is unclear, as is the issue of how the relationship between the appellant and her husband relates to homelessness. As indicated, the appellant and her husband are estranged. The latter does not occupy the property any longer. I have dealt with the fact that the appellant has remedies to pursue against her husband in respect of his maintenance obligations towards her and their minor child.
“She is not entitled to hold the first respondent’s property hostage, so to speak, in an attempt to enforce her claims against her husband...
“The (new homeowner) cannot be held liable for the alleged failure by the appellant’s husband to support her and the minor child – the existence and consequences of any such failure are issues that should be determined in an appropriate forum upon relevant evidence,” said Van Zyl.