KEY POINTS
- The high court maintained the eviction decision and issued April 28 as the deadline for the illegal resident to leave.
- For over one year the homeowner has spent money on their property bond while remaining unable to actually live there.
- The court established financial disagreements between a woman and her divorced husband cannot serve as legal grounds to hold occupancy of his property illegally.
A homeowner from Parklands has secured the opportunity to settle into his property through the Western Cape High Court-ordered eviction of a woman who stayed in the house beyond its previous court-ordered release date.
Long legal battle ends in eviction order
The property owner bought the home through a sale in execution on January 31, 2023 while making regular monthly bond payments of R21,000. He cannot settle into the property because the woman who resides with children there refuses to move out.
Through his offer to cover two months’ rent and pay a rental deposit she still refused his help for relocation.
The magistrate’s court first instructed her removal during July 2023 yet she campaigned for the high court to delay enforcement. On April 28 she needs to leave the premises according to the high court’s decision. The Sheriff of the court holds the authority to carry out forcible removal starting from April 30 after she fails to depart.
Court rejects further delays
In her ruling Acting Judge Philippa van Zyl declared the woman’s appeal extension request was meant to obstruct her removal from the property. The court emphasized that the woman possessed knowledge about the plan to sell the property which originated in 2021 because of struggling financial circumstances.
The woman sought to involve her estranged husband in court since she argued he held responsibility to stop her from being homeless. The court dismissed her request for separate forum resolution because it needed to proceed with the dispute involving her husband.
A victory for property rights
The court decided against holding the homeowner responsible for the financial conditions or support deficiency of the woman and her estranged husband.
The court determined that the first respondent legally possesses his property because no law grants the occupier rights to use it as collateral against her claims against her husband.
Following this court decision the property owner can finally expect to take control of his property after his long legal struggle.
