- The eviction application concerns an elderly woman who has lived in a Glenanda property since November 2021 under a temporary family arrangement.
- The municipality must provide a detailed report on her housing circumstances and whether eviction would leave her homeless.
- The court rejected an attempt to compel the woman’s adult daughter to arrange her relocation, finding no established legal basis for such an obligation.
The City of Johannesburg must explain what alternative accommodation would be available to an elderly woman facing eviction from a family-owned property before the Johannesburg High Court can decide whether her removal would be just and equitable.
The eviction application, brought by Luso Africa Insurance Brokers CC and its sole member, also sought to compel the woman’s daughter to take practical and administrative steps to arrange her relocation, including pursuing an application for placement through the Department of Social Development.
However, Acting Judge A Mitchell found that the applicants had not established a legal basis for forcing the daughter to assume responsibility for her mother’s relocation.
Temporary family arrangement
The dispute concerns a property in Glenanda, Johannesburg, owned by Luso Africa Insurance Brokers CC. The company’s sole member is the second applicant, who is related to the elderly woman.
The woman moved into the property in November 2021 after her sister asked that she be allowed to stay there temporarily to assist with the care of the second applicant’s mother and disabled sister.
According to the applicants, the arrangement was never intended to give the woman permanent accommodation or ownership rights. She was allowed to remain until she was asked to leave.
She was first requested to vacate the property in December 2022, but refused. Further correspondence in 2025 reiterated that the arrangement had ended and that she was expected to leave.
The applicants argued that her continued occupation was preventing them from selling the property. They intend to use the proceeds to fund specialised care and accommodation for the second applicant’s disabled sister, who requires assistance with daily activities.
The medical reports submitted to the court describe the sister as wheelchair-dependent and warn that continued stress could worsen her condition and trigger seizures.
Homelessness must be investigated
Although the applicants established that the woman’s permission to occupy the property had ended, Judge Mitchell said this did not automatically justify eviction.
The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act requires courts to determine whether eviction would be just and equitable, taking into account the circumstances of the occupier and the possibility of homelessness.
The judge emphasised that courts have an independent responsibility to investigate these circumstances, even where an occupier does not oppose the eviction application.
The woman is elderly and has lived at the property for approximately five years. Although attempts had been made to identify alternative accommodation, including suggesting a retirement facility, contacting Social Development and providing rental advertisements, there was no evidence that affordable accommodation was actually available to her.
Judge Mitchell said the court could not simply assume that a family member would accommodate her or that the suggested alternatives were financially accessible.
The judge also considered the interests of the disabled sister, whose medical condition and need for specialised care formed an important part of the applicants’ reasons for wanting to sell the property. The court said the circumstances of both vulnerable women had to be considered alongside the property owner’s rights.
Daughter cannot be forced to arrange relocation
The applicants also wanted an order compelling the woman’s daughter and another relative to take reasonable administrative and practical steps to facilitate her relocation.
This included pursuing an application to the Department of Social Development for placement and reporting on the steps taken by 15 December 2026.
The daughter opposed this part of the application, arguing that she could not afford private care for her mother and should not be compelled to accommodate or take responsibility for relocating her.
Judge Mitchell found that the applicants had failed to establish a legal basis for imposing these obligations on her. The judge acknowledged that an adult child may have a common-law duty to support a parent in need. However, the parent’s financial need and the child’s ability to provide support must first be established.
The judge explained that the family relationship alone was insufficient to establish the particular obligations the applicants wanted imposed.
The daughter’s previous efforts to obtain assistance for her mother also did not amount to a legal commitment to arrange her relocation. The court consequently dismissed the application against her with costs on the party-and-party scale, scale A.
Municipality given 60 days to report
Rather than deciding the eviction application immediately, Judge Mitchell directed the City of Johannesburg to prepare a report under oath within 60 calendar days after service of the order. The report must address the woman’s circumstances, whether she can afford alternative accommodation without state assistance and whether eviction is likely to leave her homeless.
The municipality must also identify available accommodation, its suitability, affordability, location, facilities, costs and the earliest realistic date on which placement could take place. If suitable accommodation is unavailable, the city must explain the obstacles, the steps it intends taking to address them and any interim arrangements it can provide.
The judge made it clear that a general explanation of the municipality’s housing policy or lack of resources would not be sufficient. The city must also report on its engagement with the woman and whether mediation could help secure her relocation.
The applicants and the elderly woman will have 20 calendar days after receiving the municipal report to file responding affidavits. The matter may then be set down for further hearing.
Judge Mitchell condoned the daughter’s late filing of her opposing papers and admitted a supplementary medical report submitted by the applicants.
The eviction application remains unresolved, with the municipality’s report expected to provide the information necessary for the court to determine whether the woman’s removal would be just and equitable.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
