- A family facing four months away from home became locked in a new dispute over everyday household furniture.
- The mother explained that finding a pet-friendly furnished rental during Cape Town’s peak holiday season was nearly impossible.
- Judge DM Thulare looked into whether a previous court order had already resolved what suitable temporary accommodation meant.
A woman already navigating an acrimonious divorce returned to the High Court in the Western Cape after being ordered to vacate the former matrimonial home for four months so renovations could be completed. The house belongs to a family trust and remains at the centre of the couple’s ongoing divorce dispute.
She had already accepted that she and her children would have to leave the Constantia home while renovation work went ahead. What she never expected was that the next battle would be over the furniture they had lived with for years and whether they could take it to the place they would temporarily call home.
She told the court she had found a suitable home to stay in while the renovations took place. The trouble was, it was unfurnished, and she simply could not afford to buy furniture just for four months.
The Cape Town rental market closed every door
The woman described how she spent months searching across Constantia, Camps Bay, Fresnaye, Green Point and nearby areas. She reached out to several estate agencies, hoping to find a furnished property that allowed pets and offered a short-term lease during the busy summer months.
According to her, every option fell through for the same reasons. Homes were either unfurnished, did not allow pets or had switched to expensive holiday rates that put them far out of reach for her budget.
She argued that moving the family’s own furniture into the rental would cost less than paying for storage and having to buy or rent new furniture for just four months. The pieces had been collected over many years and formed part of the home her children were used to.
The divorce battle shaped every decision
The trustees opposed her application and said that this dispute was not the trust’s responsibility. They argued that any obligation to provide temporary accommodation was her husband’s, pointing out a previous court order that required him to pay R140 000 a month along with deposits and reasonable removal costs.
Her husband also opposed the application. He claimed the furniture belonged to him and argued that the earlier proceedings had always assumed she would find furnished accommodation rather than moving the contents of their family home into another place.
Judge says litigation must reach an end
Judge D M Thulare remarked that the case had played out against the backdrop of a deeply bitter divorce, where nearly every interaction between the parties became a source of conflict. The judgment noted that nothing was left to chance and even routine disagreements quickly ended up in court.
The judge found there was a key difference between removing personal belongings and moving the furniture from the former matrimonial home. If the parties had intended for the furniture to be moved, he said, the issue would have been raised and settled during the earlier hearings about temporary accommodation.
Judge Thulare dismissed her application with costs, bringing this chapter of the couple’s divorce litigation to a close. For the next four months, the mother and her children will have to leave their Constantia home without the family furniture she had hoped would help make their temporary accommodation feel more like home.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
