- De Ridder establishes a clear legal basis to challenge the transfer, which was signed under a power of attorney that had already been cancelled.
- Court warns of irreversible harm, noting the property and its rental income are her primary means of paying for nursing home care.
- The court order freezes the property and protects rental income while the full legal challenge plays out.
The High Court in the Western Cape has moved swiftly to protect 89-year-old Maria Anna De Ridder after her Ladysmith property was transferred to her stepdaughter without her knowledge.
Acting Judge A Montzinger found strong grounds to believe the transfer was unlawful and that De Ridder faces a serious risk of losing the means to fund her care.
De Ridder, who lives in a nursing home and has limited capacity to manage her own affairs, approached the court after discovering that her property had been transferred in January 2026 to Rose Marie Nelson.
The transfer was carried out using a deed of sale signed under a general power of attorney that had already been cancelled months before.
Judge Montzinger agreed the matter was urgent and stepped in to protect both the property itself and the rental income it generates from a garden flat on the premises.
Parties and background
De Ridder is the long-standing registered owner of the Ladysmith property. The primary person she brought the case against, Nelson, is her stepdaughter, while Trevor Tiffany Nelson, her stepson-in-law, played a central role in the transaction. The Registrar of Deeds in Cape Town, along with several other parties, including the tenants of the garden flat, were also named in the proceedings.
The court heard that De Ridder had owned the property since 2004. A deed of sale was allegedly concluded in October 2025, signed by Trevor Nelson acting under a power of attorney. The problem, however, was that this authority had already been formally cancelled on 23 September 2025, weeks before the sale was signed.
Judge Montzinger recorded the significance of this, stating, “The power of attorney relied upon had been revoked before the purported deed of sale was signed.”
Despite this, the property was transferred into Nelson’s name in January 2026. The court also noted that the stated purchase price of R877,000 was a fraction of the property’s estimated market value of between R2.2 million and R2.375 million, and that De Ridder had not received a single cent.
Adding to the concern, the respondents obtained a duplicate title deed by claiming the original had been lost, when in fact it was still in De Ridder’s possession.
Court findings and legal test
Judge Montzinger worked through the legal requirements for granting urgent interim protection and found that De Ridder satisfied every one of them.
On whether De Ridder had a legal right worth protecting, the court found she clearly did. The judge pointed to the core facts, stating, “She was the registered owner. The power of attorney relied upon had been revoked… the price was far below market value, and she received no payment.”
On the risk of lasting harm, the court emphasised how vulnerable De Ridder is and how much she depends on the property, warning that “There is a reasonable apprehension that, absent immediate relief, the property could be further alienated or encumbered.”
The judgment went further to recognise the human impact, noting, “The applicant is a vulnerable elderly person in frail care whose livelihood and ability to fund her nursing home costs depend materially on the value of this immovable property.”
Weighing up the competing interests, the court found that freezing the property caused the Nelsons limited and reversible inconvenience, while refusing to act could permanently harm De Ridder. Judge Montzinger explained, “The prejudice to the Nelsons… is limited and reversible, whereas the prejudice to the applicant… is severe and potentially irreparable.”
The court also found that there was no other adequate remedy available to her, particularly given her advanced age and financial vulnerability.
Relief granted and limits of the order
The court issued an order preventing the respondents from selling or otherwise dealing with the property, and directed that all rental income be paid into a trust account in the meantime.
The court did, however, stop short of ordering the respondents to vacate the property. Judge Montzinger was clear on this point, stating, “Evictions from residential premises may only be ordered in terms of the relevant legislation and cannot be granted indirectly through interim relief.”
The order will remain in place until the full case is heard, at which point a court will decide once and for all whether the transfer was lawful.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
