- Elderly widower allowed to stay in retirement unit, court finds occupation not unlawful.
- Failure to record spouse in agreement is not decisive; contextual interpretation applied.
- Eviction refused under PIE, court finds it not just and equitable.
A 78-year-old widower has won his fight to remain in his home after the High Court in Johannesburg ruled that his continued occupation of a retirement unit was not unlawful, even though his name never appeared in the original agreement.
In NG Kerk Brackenhurst Aftreebehuising v HJB and Another, the court rejected the retirement scheme’s reading of the contract and refused to grant an eviction order under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
The dispute arose following the death of Ms ACB, who had purchased a life right in a retirement unit back in 2010 when she was still unmarried. She and HJB married in 2019, and he moved into the unit, where the couple lived together until her death on 4 September 2023. Shortly afterwards, the scheme operator demanded that he leave, on the grounds that he had never been formally recorded in the agreement as a spouse.
Parties and background
The eviction application was brought by NG Kerk Brackenhurst Aftreebehuising NWO, the body that administers the retirement housing development. The City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality was cited as the second respondent.
The scheme argued that the agreement only allows a surviving spouse to continue living in the unit if that spouse’s details are formally recorded in the contract. Since HJB’s particulars had never been added after the marriage, the scheme contended that his right to remain in the unit came to an end when his wife died.
HJB firmly disputed that he was there unlawfully. He pointed out that he had lived in the unit openly as his wife’s husband for several years, and that the scheme had always been aware of and accepted his presence.
Contract interpretation and court’s reasoning
Judge L Windell approached the agreement by considering its broader context and purpose, rejecting what she found to be an overly rigid reading of the clause dealing with the recording of a spouse’s details.
The court stated, “Interpretation is a unitary exercise in which the language used must be considered in the light of its context and purpose.”
The judge found that the requirement to formally record a spouse’s particulars could not be treated as an absolute condition for continued occupation, particularly where the scheme had long been aware of the spouse’s existence and had accepted it without objection.
Judge Windell held, “The absence of a formal amendment recording those particulars cannot, without more, be regarded as extinguishing the contractual benefit of continued occupation.”
The court also noted that nothing in the agreement required a new contract to be concluded simply because the original purchaser had remarried. On that basis, the court concluded that HJB was not an unlawful occupier.
PIE and the just and equitable enquiry
The court went on to consider whether, even if the occupation had been unlawful, an eviction order would have been justified under PIE. Judge Windell stated, “Eviction is not a mechanical consequence of unlawful occupation.”
The scheme pointed to the delay in reselling the housing interest and finalising the deceased estate as grounds for urgency. The court, however, noted that the eviction proceedings had been initiated by the scheme operator itself, not by the executor of the estate.
The court gave careful consideration to HJB’s personal circumstances. He is 78 years old, in poor health, and has very limited means to secure alternative accommodation. The court also took into account that he had lived in the unit as his wife’s husband for several years before her death.
Judge Windell found, “Eviction would impose significant hardship on an elderly and unwell occupier with limited means to secure alternative accommodation.”
The court concluded that eviction would be neither just nor equitable, holding that “the drastic remedy of eviction is not warranted.”
Outcome and costs
The eviction application was dismissed in its entirety. On the question of costs, the court made no order, with Judge Windell observing that “the issues raised… were legitimate issues requiring determination” and concluding that it was fair for each party to bear its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
