Earlier this month, the Western Cape High Court ordered the eviction of a woman (‘the Appellant’), and all occupants holding title under her, who refused to vacate a Parklands property after it was sold in execution and formally transferred into the name of the new owner in 2023.
Despite forking out approximately R21 000.00 in monthly bond repayments for nearly two years, a Cape Town man (‘the First Respondent’) was deprived of the use and enjoyment of a property he purchased during a sale in execution in January 2023. Following an action instituted by Nedbank against the Appellant’s husband – the previous registered owner – in 2021, the High Court declared the property specially executable, allowing the financial institution to recover outstanding amounts under the mortgage bond.
After taking transfer of the property in April 2023 and issuing the Appellant with formal notices to vacate the premises, the First Respondent instituted eviction proceedings against her. Although the matter was postponed on numerous occasions to enable the Appellant to secure legal representation, the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court eventually granted an eviction order under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (‘the PIE Act’). The Appellant – and those holding title under her – were ordered to vacate the property by 31st July 2024.
Less than a month prior to the eviction date, the Appellant lodged an appeal, requesting the High Court to overturn the lower court’s order. In a belated attempt to delay eviction, the Appellant asked for a postponement to appeal the 2021 order, which authorised the sale in execution. The High Court, however, rejected this request.
Seeking to resurrect issues previously abandoned in the Magistrate’s Court, the Appellant’s grounds for appeal were swiftly rejected by the High Court, which found no reason to reverse the lower court’s order. Curiously, the Appellant attempted to join her estranged husband to the court proceedings by claiming that he owed her and their minor children a ‘duty of support’ and was obligated to secure alternative accommodation for them. Finding that the Appellant’s husband does not have a ‘direct and substantial interest’ in the matter, the High Court reasoned that he is not an occupier and thus has no interest in the outcome of the eviction proceedings.
Going further, the High Court stressed that any claims the Appellant may have against her estranged husband must be pursued in an ‘appropriate forum’. The court reasoned that the First Respondent, being the ‘innocent and lawful’ property owner, should not be ‘burdened with the marital problems of an unlawful occupier’. Accordingly, the scope of the matter is sensibly limited to unlawful occupation and does not warrant a maintenance inquiry, irrespective of the purported obligations of the Appellant’s husband towards his estranged spouse and children. Crucially, the court held that entertaining the Appellant’s claim ‘would be tantamount to the expropriation of the land or property of a lawful private owner.’
Finding that the Appellant is not entitled to hold the property ‘hostage’, the High Court ordered the Appellant – and the other unlawful occupiers – to vacate the premises by 28th April 2025, failing which the Sheriff of the Court is directed to evict them by 30th April 2025. Ultimately, the judgment affirms the rights of property owners who adhere to the legal requirements and processes established by the PIE Act.
As arguably the largest property law firm in South Africa, STBB has the skill and expertise to handle any property-related matter. Beyond this, our seasoned litigators have extensive experience in resolving disputes concerning eviction, sectional title schemes, construction contracts, and general and commercial-related matters.
For sound legal guidance, contact our litigation and dispute resolution specialists at litigation@stbb.co.za.
