Tag

Eviction attorney Archives | Eviction Lawyers South Africa

Opera singer wins court battle with old-age home

By | Eviction news

Reprinted from iol.co.za, by Mervyn Naidoo – 2024-10-27

The High Court application brought by the heads of a Durban retirement village to evict a long-time resident from their facility was dismissed with costs last week.

The Amanzimtoti Welfare Organisation For the Aged moved to terminate Diana Patricia Gregson’s lifetime right and occupation of a unit and use of a garage at the Poinsettia Park Retirement Centre.

AWOFTA alleged that Gregson, a professional opera singer, who also had UK citizenship, had not occupied her unit since December 2019, which exceeded their permitted absence period.

They stated that various clauses in the agreement and house rules supported their termination bid.

AWOFTA contends that her prolonged absence constituted a breach of the life rights.

Their legal representatives served a letter threatening to terminate her life right in January 2022.

Gregson’s attorney Shaheen Seedat, who is on Legal Aid South Africa’s ‘s panel as a judicare practitioner, eventually filed her notice to contest the AWOFA’s application in April 2023.

The 81-year-old Gregson was granted condonation for the late filing (11 days) of her response.

Gregson said she suffered severe gallbladder attacks since December 2022 which led to her hospitalisation in the UK April 2023 and was only able to consult Seedat in May.

She said the AWOFTA’s application contained numerous false claims and deviations from the truth.

Gregson said she was the registered owner of the unit at retirement village .

During the AWOFTA’s AGM held July 1985, her late mother Gladys Gregson, who attended, posed a question about Gregson’s and her intended long term absences from Poinsettia Park.

Gregson said, according to the minutes of the said meeting, all cottages were sold without Sectional Title and no cottages were for renting and there were no restrictions on leave of absence for residents of cottages bought.

“It was for that reason that my late mother purchased the said property.

“Both my mother, my late sister and I had dual citizenship in South Africa and the UK.

“I was an opera singer and performed in various countries throughout the world previously, and never had any issues with long absences from Poinsettia Park,” read an extract from Gregson’s affidavit.

Accordingly, Gregson’s mother signed a 99-year lease for the right to the exclusive use and occupation of the unit, which was concluded in 1986.

She was substituted as the owner of the unit and covered the carport during 1995 and the occupier of the property since 1996.

Gregson has had previous legal run-ins with the body corporate regarding her rights and occupation of the unit, which necessitated her approaching the same court in 2018, where a consent order was granted in her favour.

The body corporate undertook not to harass Gregson and allow her peaceful and undisturbed occupation of the unit.

Gregson also challenged the body corporate over levy charges due by her, which was handled by the Durban Magistrates Court.

In the 2018 ruling, the court also ordered that in respect of the levies issue, the body corporate give a full breakdown of her levy account, look into excessive charges, and submit their formula for levy calculation, all of which must be dealt with in the Magistrate’s Court.

Having travelled to the UK in December 2019, Gregson informed the body corporate about her departure and had no idea that Covid-19 would emerge.

Lockdown restrictions in the UK made travelling back impossible.

Her return home was further complicated by her inability to take the Covid 19 vaccine because of significant allergies to various pharmaceuticals.

The restrictions regarding non vaccine passport travel were only relaxed in late 2022, but Gregson was already beset by other health problems by then.

She was also threatened with eviction in 2021, but the body corporate were not able to follow through without a court order.

Gregson maintained that she had legal possession of the property for over 27 years and her mother’s lifelong lease with the body corporate was still valid, in her name, and must be honoured.

She said she cannot be forced to accept the body corporates new rules to her detriment, which were not contained in her original contract.

In last week’s sitting the court said the crux of this matter lay with the interpretation of the memorandum of agreement concluded by AWOFTA and Gregson’s mother, and the minutes of July 1985 AGM, and the house rules of the retirement centre.

The court found that there were no agreement that directly refers to AWOFTA and Gregson.

However, her mother entered into an agreement with AWOFTA and Gregson succeeded her, and noted that the organisation agreed to being bound by the original agreement, including its flaws.

It was pointed out that the “life rights” agreement did not directly address absences due to certain health conditions.

AWOFTA has not established a clear right to the relief sought, the court ruled.


For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with tenants’ rights or landlords’ responsibilities.

Further reading:

How to oppose eviction South Africa

Opposed eviction

By | Evictions, Lease Agreement, PIE, Tenants

What is the difference between an unopposed and opposed eviction?

 

We’ve written a lot about the eviction process. In describing the procedure, we say, “If there is a valid defence, then a trial date is set. If there is no valid defence, a ‘warrant of eviction’ is issued to the sheriff giving authorisation for the sheriff to remove the tenant’s possessions from the premises.” If the tenant offers a valid defence, the matter is considered an “opposed eviction”. If there is no defence, the eviction is “unopposed” and proceeds straight to the court order and the removal of the tenant’s belongings from the property. But what constitutes a valid defence and why might a tenant oppose an eviction?

The right to housing vs. the right to ownership

In South Africa the right to housing is a constitutional right of every individual as per section 26 of the Constitution. But sometimes this right of the tenant comes into conflict with the landlord’s constitutional right to ownership, which is entrenched in section 25.

With a residential property lease, once there is a breach of contract, the landlord is entitled to give notice, cancel the lease and evict the defaulting tenant. If the landlord has given written notice of the intention to cancel the lease and the notice period has expired (minimum one calendar month) with no payment from the tenant, eviction proceedings can begin. If the lease is cancelled for any other breach, that must also be rectified within the notice period, but non-payment of rent is the most common.

Due process to oppose an eviction

The landlord then applies to court in terms of the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (PIE). The landlord and the tenant have several rights and responsibilities when it comes to eviction applications and the process can be technical. The application is made up of a notice (S4(1) notice) supported by an affidavit. 

Once a notice of cancellation/eviction has been sent and the notice period has expired, the court process may begin, through the service of an eviction application by the Sheriff. The respondent will then have 10 days to oppose by filing and serve his Notice of Intention to Oppose. Regardless, an ex-parte application is brought before the court to request permission to continue to the final hearing. The court will then grant the eviction and the Sheriff can evict the unlawful occupier in terms of the order.

Going to trial

If the matter is opposed it moves to trial. Before a court can grant an eviction it has to consider all the relevant circumstances and be in a position to rule that the eviction is just and equitable. The court hears the arguments of both landlord and tenant. This is done through affidavits. The owner of the property approaches the court on the basis of ownership and the unlawful occupation. It is the tenant’s responsibility to then raise special circumstances to defend their case. The court will take into consideration the rights of any elderly occupants, children, disabled persons and households headed by women when granting the eviction. 

Term of occupancy

The tenant’s length of occupation is a key factor in the court’s decision. In terms of section 4 of PIE, if the tenant has occupied the property for less than six months, the court must appraise “all relevant circumstances…” before making an order. However, if the term of occupancy has been longer than six months, there is an additional requirement on the court. It must determine “whether land (or alternative accommodation) has been or can reasonably be made available … for the relocation”. If the eviction is lawful and the tenancy has been in place for more than six months, the lack of alternative accommodation constitutes a reasonable defence. The government has a duty to provide all citizens with housing and the tenant must have access to alternative housing. If not, the eviction cannot be granted. The eviction will have been successfully opposed.

Need help with an opposed eviction?

SD Law is a law firm in Cape Town and Johannesburg with specialist eviction lawyers. If you need advice on lease agreements, need to oppose an eviction or deal with a tenant’s defence, or any other aspects of landlord-tenant relations, contact Cape Town attorney Simon Dippenaar on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading:

Call for moratorium on court magistrates granting eviction orders

By | COVID 19, Evicting a family member, Eviction news, Eviction orders

Reprinted from IOL, by Mthuthuzeli Ntseku – 2021-06-23

Non-profit organisation Ndifuna Ukwazi calls for moratorium on eviction orders

Non-profit organisation Ndifuna Ukwazi said evictions under alert level 3 remained prohibited unless a court ordered otherwise. File picture: Henk Kruger/African News agency (ANA)

Cape Town – The Ukubavimba Foundation has called on Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, Ronald Lamola, to place a moratorium on court magistrates granting eviction orders.
This as a family of six from Atlantis is facing possible eviction after a family member got an eviction order to throw them out of the house they have been occupying for 35 years.

Speaking on behalf of the family, activist Verona October said the family had been living in the house since birth, but now their aunt wanted to evict them.

“The sheriff was recently at the family home, and we want to know what this eviction is based on. Earlier this year the aunt got people to rent the house, and now she wants to evict the family. They haven’t received a letter of eviction, but we are aware of her intention to get them evicted. The family has been living in their late grandfather’s house since birth, and they know no other home but this one,” she said.

Foundation activist Deon Carelse said it was a constitutional matter, adding that evictions increased homelessness.

“Minister Lamola is in charge of the courts, and with the judges that under his authority he can bar them from signing these eviction orders. Our Constitution tells us that there should be adequate housing for all, and that is a basic human right. For a court judge to grant an eviction order is unconstitutional.

“Currently we are under alert level 3, and with the national lockdown it is unconstitutional to evict a person. These evictions, whether private or farm evictions, are unlawful and unjust. An eviction order to be granted by a court does not do justice to the evicted families; it is inhumane, especially at this time of the year,” said Carelse.

Non-profit organisation Ndifuna Ukwazi said evictions under alert level 3 remained prohibited unless a court ordered otherwise.

“This means the sheriff cannot physically remove you from your home until the State of Disaster ends, unless the court specifically orders that it is just and equitable for the eviction to be carried out before then,” the organisation said.

It said courts must always consider all factors, including the reason for an eviction, evictees’ personal circumstances, especially the elderly, children and people with specific needs, and whether alternative accommodation was available.


For further information

SD Law is a law firm in Cape Town and Johannesburg with specialist eviction lawyers. If you are seeking an eviction, we will make sure you meet the court’s requirements. Contact Cape Town attorney Simon Dippenaar on 086 099 5146 or email sdippenaar@sdlaw.co.za.

Further reading: