- The High Court dismissed an attempt to evict a 73-year-old woman and her family, who have lived in the Bellville property for decades.
- The judge found that the home was transferred without the proper authority required by the Administration of Estates Act.
- The court ruled that evicting the family would not be just or fair, considering their inheritance rights and the risk of them becoming homeless.
“If the law supposes that, … the law is an ass.”
With those opening words drawn from Charles Dickens’ Oliver Twist, the High Court in the Western Cape began a judgment that ultimately protected a Bellville family from eviction after finding serious concerns with the way their longtime home had been transferred and sold.
Acting Judge K Saller, with Judge B Mantame and Judge N Ralarala concurring, upheld an earlier ruling refusing the eviction of Elsie Arendse and her family from the property in Bellville.
The matter arose after Francois Petrus Ruiters and Trudie Ingrid Ruiters purchased the property in late 2023 and shortly thereafter launched eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
Arendse, now 73 years old, had lived on the property since 1975. She occupied the home with her adult children, one of whom is disabled, and her grandchildren.
The court found that the property had originally belonged jointly to members of the Arendse and Florence families. After the deaths of the original owners over several decades, the estates were never properly finalised.
Questions raised about property transfer
The judgment details how Chris Florence was appointed as a representative for the deceased's estate under Section 18(3) of the Administration of Estates Act. The court found this appointment only allowed him to act under the direction of the Master of the High Court.
According to the judgment, attorney Sybrand Smit later claimed legal fees of R200 000 from Florence. A settlement agreement was then concluded in which the Bellville property was transferred to Smit in satisfaction of the alleged debt before being transferred onward to the Ruiters couple.
The court noted serious concerns with the process, including the absence of the Master’s consent to the transfer. Judge Saller wrote, “On the undisputed facts on record, the property has been dealt with and alienated without the Master’s consent and in conflict with Section 18(3).” The court also criticised a 2022 demand letter sent to the family ordering them to vacate the property.
Judge Saller said the letter falsely described Florence as the lawful owner and incorrectly suggested the family owed rent. “The letter of 8 October 2022 was incapable of overriding the respondents’ prima facie legal entitlement to remain in occupation of the property pending the proper winding up of the deceased estates,” the judge stated.
Court finds eviction would not be just or fair
The court stressed that eviction matters under PIE are not mechanical exercises based only on ownership documents.
Quoting earlier Constitutional Court precedent, Judge Saller wrote, “PIE expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and compassion into the formal structures of the law.”
The judgment highlighted the family’s vulnerability, including Arendse’s age, her disabled son, and the risk of homelessness if they were removed from the property.
The City of Cape Town’s housing report proposed only emergency housing kits, which the family would have to assemble themselves after securing land. Judge Saller found this wholly inadequate. “This case is such a rare instance where it is not appropriate to make an eviction order,” the judge wrote.
The court also emphasised that the family had inheritance rights linked to the deceased's estate and that those rights could not simply be ignored because ownership had been transferred on paper.
Court directs buyers to other legal remedies
While dismissing the eviction appeal, the court said the buyers were not left without legal remedies. Judge Saller explained that any potential claim lay against those responsible for the allegedly unauthorised transfer of the property, not against the family occupying it.
“The appellants’ remedy lies against the person or persons who can be shown, in due course, to have caused the unauthorised transfer of the property to them,” the judgment stated.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
