The protracted legal battle between the City of Cape Town and its tenant Yunus Hussain has reached a pivotal moment in the Western Cape High Court, shining a spotlight on critical tenant rights issues.
In a ruling delivered electronically on 17 April 2025 and victory for tenant rights, Judge JD Lekhuleni and Judge NE Ralarala considered the City’s appeal against a magistrate’s decision to delay an eviction judgment involving Hussain and her child. The appeal stemmed from a long-standing lease agreement that has evolved into a legal dispute over rent escalation and occupation rights.
The property at the heart of the dispute was initially leased by the City to Hussain’s ex-husband in 2004 under a five-year agreement, with rent starting at R3,500 per month and limited escalation clauses. By 2019, the property’s value had reportedly risen substantially, prompting the City to propose a new lease aligned with market-related rental rates, estimated at R24,900 per month. Negotiations between the City and Hussain failed to produce agreement.
As a result, in February 2020, the City cancelled the lease and issued a notice requiring Hussain to vacate the premises by April 2020. Her refusal led to a drawn-out legal battle that underscores broader socioeconomic tensions around housing access.
Magistrate’s court deliberations and delay
The matter returned to the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court on 19 August 2024, where the presiding magistrate postponed the eviction hearing for six months to allow further negotiations. The City and Hussain were subsequently scheduled to return to court on 18 February 2025. This decision aimed to facilitate “meaningful engagement” between the parties, an approach increasingly endorsed by courts in eviction cases involving vulnerable tenants.
Hussain’s legal team emphasised her long-standing community ties and the small food business she operates from the premises. They argued that eviction would not only strip her of housing but also jeopardize her livelihood and her ability to support her child. The magistrate noted that while both parties submitted proposals, none were mutually acceptable. Hussain has since requested that the City either allow her continued occupation or assist in relocating her to another suitable municipal property.
On appeal, the City argued that the magistrate’s postponement order was irregular and appealable. However, the High Court struck the matter off the ruled, saying that the order of the magistrate did not constitute a final judgment, nor did it determine any substantive rights within the broader eviction application. The judges impressed upon the magistrate to apply his mind and decide the matter on its merits on the material before him.
#Conviction
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
