- A woman lost her home after a R400,000 defamation judgment over an insulting email sent to two members of her sectional title scheme.
- The judge questioned whether the damages award was justified and whether the magistrate properly considered alternatives before ordering the sale of her home.
- The High Court dismissed her application because it could not rescind the Regional Court orders via the proceedings before it, but rejected a bid to declare her a vexatious litigant.
Melisha Valencia Sauls has lost her unbonded home in Strand after a Regional Court ordered her to pay R400,000 in damages to fellow property owner Lourens Johannes Rossouw for defamation.
The dispute stemmed from an email Sauls sent on 20 November 2019 to two other members of the Broadway sectional title scheme, where she and Rossouw both owned units. In the email, Sauls described the trustees as “retarded individuals,” “dumb people,” “white trash people” and “bloody stupid people.”
She called Rossouw “Dom Roussouw” and said there was not enough oxygen in “daai brein.” Rossouw took offence and launched a damages claim in June 2020, seeking R400,000. Sauls initially defended the claim with attorneys, challenging the Somerset West Regional Court’s jurisdiction and filing a plea on the merits.
However, after her attorneys withdrew while she was working in Dubai, and she failed to comply with an order to provide documents, her defence was struck out in August 2022. Sauls maintained that she was not properly notified of the subsequent proceedings.
The court then granted Rossouw default judgment for R400,000, interest, and legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale on 23 June 2023. Sauls said she learnt of the judgment only in December 2023 and made several unsuccessful attempts to challenge it.
Property sold to settle debt
Rossouw then applied to the Strand Regional Court for an order declaring Sauls’ property specially executable so that it could be sold to recover the judgment debt. Sauls opposed the application and appeared in court in December 2024.
An attorney acting for her offered to pay R6,000 a month towards the debt, but Rossouw rejected the proposal as repayment would have taken more than five years. The Strand Regional Court authorised the sale of the property in December 2024, without setting a reserve price. The property was sold to Rossouw for R400,000 on 15 October 2025 and transferred into his name in January 2026.
Sauls had bought the 36m² unit in 2017 for R335,000 without a mortgage bond. The High Court papers recorded a market valuation of R570,000 and a municipal valuation of R480,000. Even after the sale, the proceeds did not cover the capital and interest then owing, leaving Sauls with further debt while Rossouw pursued eviction proceedings.
Judge questions damages award and sale
Sauls approached the High Court in Cape Town to challenge the default judgment, invalidate the sale, and reverse the transfer of her home. Acting Judge A Montzinger dismissed the application, holding that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to set aside the Regional Court orders through the application before it.
Judge Montzinger made clear that rescission or review of Regional Court orders must be sought in the Regional Court itself or via the appropriate appeal mechanisms. Section 173 of the Constitution could not confer jurisdiction where it did not otherwise exist.
Nevertheless, the judge expressed serious concerns about the original judgment and the procedures that led to Sauls losing her home. Judge Montzinger questioned whether R400,000 in damages was justified for an insulting email sent to only two people as part of a dispute within a sectional title scheme. The judge also highlighted the lack of explanation for the additional punitive legal costs.
Judge Montzinger was particularly troubled by the order allowing the sale of Sauls’ primary residence. Rule 43A of the Magistrates’ Courts requires the court to consider the circumstances, including the property’s value and whether other satisfactory means exist to pay the debt, as well as whether a reserve price should be set.
Sauls had offered to pay R6,000 per month, but the record did not show whether the magistrate considered this alternative. Nor did the record explain why the property was sold without a reserve price, despite its higher market value.
The judgment stressed that these safeguards exist to prevent people from losing their homes without proper judicial scrutiny. Judge Montzinger emphasised these were not final findings, as the full records and reasons from the Regional Courts were not available to the High Court.
Judge rejects bid to restrict further court applications
Rossouw also sought to have Sauls declared a vexatious litigant. He pointed to her repeated efforts to challenge the judgment and the sale, as well as offensive and irrelevant allegations in her papers. The judge acknowledged Sauls had brought several applications and that some filings were unacceptable.
However, Judge Montzinger found that the legal threshold for declaring a person vexatious had not been met. Sauls’ underlying complaint related to a substantial judgment that had never been properly examined on its merits and the loss of her home.
“The pattern that emerges is not that of a litigant who has had her day in court and refuses to accept the result,” Judge Montzinger said. “It is that of a lay litigant who has been unable to find the door, and who has been told, successively and sometimes inconsistently, that it lies elsewhere.”
The judge dismissed the counter-application. Judge Montzinger found that repeatedly attempting to challenge a judgment and recover a home did not, in these circumstances, justify restricting Sauls from bringing further legal proceedings.
Further legal options remain
Although the High Court dismissed Sauls’ application, the judgment identified possible routes she could still pursue. She may apply to the Somerset West Regional Court to rescind the original default judgment, provided she meets the relevant legal requirements, such as explaining the delay and showing a bona fide defence to the defamation claim.
She may also challenge the order authorising the sale via appeal or review, subject to the applicable procedures and time limits. The High Court did not reverse the sale or transfer of the property, and the judge emphasised that the concerns raised would have to be addressed by a court hearing a properly constituted challenge.
The application was dismissed without a costs order against Sauls. Rossouw’s counter-application to have her declared a vexatious litigant was dismissed with costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
