Western Cape High Court halts eviction of family in Ruyterwacht

The Western Cape High Court Town has refused to evict a low-income family from its long-term home, finding that the owner had not shown eviction would be just and equitable and that the City had failed to provide required housing information.

Civic organisations have welcomed a significant ruling by the Western Cape High Court, which dismissed an eviction application by Purple Block Projects (Pty) Ltd against tenants who have occupied a flat in Ruyterwacht for more than two decades.

The occupants have a five-year-old autistic child in the household and submitted that they have consistently met their rental obligations.

According to court papers, the applicant was Purple Block Projects (Pty) Ltd (Purple Block), while the respondents were the tenants, whose names have been withheld, and the City of Cape Town.

In making his findings for judgment, Acting Judge Stanley O’Brien said the application for the eviction of the first, second and fourth respondents was dismissed.

He further ordered that the Purple Block must pay the first, second and fourth respondents’ costs.

The eviction application’s outcome focused on the principles of equity and the rights of vulnerable tenants.

Acting Judge O’Brien said the family, who were referred to as W… in court papers, had occupied the residence for more than 20 years and that the Purple Block was the registered owner and relied on a clause in the lease that permitted the termination of the lease by providing written notice.

The case related to the applicant’s application for an eviction under section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE).

According to the court papers, the W[...] family opposed the eviction, pointing to the property’s history, the fact that they had not breached the lease, their personal circumstances and the absence of a report from the City of Cape Town.

“The applicant has demonstrated that the lease has ended and that the respondents remain on the property without a new contract,” said the judge.

“However, this is not the only point in issue. In eviction proceedings under PIE, the court must apply a multi-stage test. First, the landlord must show that the lease was properly terminated.

“Second, the continued occupation must be shown to be unlawful as defined by PIE. Third, even if these elements are satisfied, the court must conduct a separate and thorough inquiry into whether eviction is just and equitable in all circumstances.”

The court heard that the family had paid rent for the house for more than 20 years.

The court heard that the family had lived at the property for about 22 years. The husband was 48 and had become unemployed just before the reply affidavit was submitted.

Their daughter, as one of the respondents, was now 22 years old and earned roughly R14 300 a month as a sales administrator.

The daughter’s five-year-old son also lives on the property who is autistic and attends a special needs school.

The respondents argued that they could not find accommodation for five people close to the current rental, which was said to amount to R4 000 a month.

In its founding affidavit, the applicant said that rental properties were available in neighbouring areas and that newspapers and websites frequently included rental listings. 

The court said that the applicant had to prove that the eviction was just and equitable. “Although the earlier order required municipal information, the applicant chose to apply for the final eviction without obtaining it,” the papers stated.

“The lack of this evidence therefore works against the relief sought. Procedurally, if a party fails to comply with a court order calling for further evidence or input, such as a municipal report, the court cannot grant final relief because the evidence record is incomplete.”

The papers state that the fourth respondents are the family members and any other person occupying through them.

The City is cited as the third respondent relating to emergency housing if eviction would result in homelessness.

The tenants entered into a written residential lease with the previous owner and moved in on December 5, 2003.

The court papers state that the property then changed hands several times. The applicant stated that it bought the property from Goodfind Properties (Pty) Ltd and became the registered owner in 2024.

On 25 November 2024, the applicant's lawyers sent a written notice and demanded that the property should be left vacant by 1 March 2025.

The court heard that the founding affidavit, that the respondents had fallen into arrears.

The answering affidavit supplied a detailed account of a utility's reconciliation, an arrangement made by LegalWise to pay R5 000 per month.

The property had formerly been owned by Communicare.

In conclusion, the court stated that the tenants had honoured their rental obligations and that the applicant's proprietary interest was commercial. It acquired the property knowing that the respondents were occupying it, attempted to sell it to them and now seeks possession after those negotiations failed.

“On the other hand, eviction would put the respondents at risk of losing their sole established home, cause the breakdown of a low-income household, and result in serious disruption to the care and education of a young child who has autism,” the papers state.

The City said: “The City does not intervene in private court matters, unless the court directs us to do so. There has been no ruling against the City at this stage. It must be noted that the City did prepare a housing report. The City is studying the judgment.”

Enquiries from Weekend Argus to Purple Block Projects Pty Ltd's lawyers and representative were unanswered by time of publication. 

Imraahn Ismail-Mukaddam, of civic organisation Inspire Network, which has been supporting the plight of the family, said the court's ruling was a victory and an example of human rights being reaffirmed.

“Ownership does not automatically justify eviction,” he said.

“The household faced significant vulnerability. One adult had recently become unemployed, household income was modest, and the family struggled to identify affordable alternative accommodation. A five-year-old autistic child also lived in the home and depended on the wider household for care and support.

“The court found that the consequences of eviction would be serious and specific, while the owner's claimed commercial prejudice was largely general and undefined.

“An earlier court order had directed the City to provide a housing report addressing the availability of alternative or emergency accommodation for the family. No such report was filed,” said Ismail-Mukaddam.

He emphasised that the judgment does not grant the family a permanent right to remain in the property, revive the terminated lease or prevent fresh eviction proceedings if circumstances materially change.