SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: 10535/24
In the matter between
HERMANUS LAMBERTUS LE ROUX NO 1st APPLICANT
HELIUS LE ROUX NO 2nd APPLICANT
JOHANNA DALENA TREURNICHT NO 3rd APPLICANT
AND
J[...] J[...] B[...] 1st RESPONDENT
S[...] B[...] 2nd RESPONDENT
THE OCCUPIERS OF ERF 5 [...], VAN WYKSVLEI, 3rd RESPONDENT
WELLINGTON THROUGH OR UNDER 1st and 2nd
RESPONDENT
DRAKENSTEIN LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 4TH RESPONDENT
Date of Hearing: 27 February 2025
Date of Judgment: 17 March 2025 (to be delivered via email to the respective
counsel)
_____________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________
THULARE J
[1] This is an opposed application for the eviction of the respondents from immovable
property owned by the Groenewald Trust. The applicants are the trustees. Only the 1st
and 2nd respondents opposed the application. The 1st and respondents occupied the
prope rty on the basis of a one -year lease agreement which thereafter became a month
to month lease. The Trust cancelled the lease on a month’s notice as envisaged in the
lease agreement. The respondents remain in occupation of the property. 1st and 2nd
responde nts (the respondents) entered an appearance to defend. Their application to
be represented by Legald Aid South Africa (LASA) was declined for lack of merit. They
conducted their own defence.
[2] The respondents raised various grounds in their opposition. They alleged that the
house which they occupied was built through the self -build project of the Wellington
Municipality (the Municipality) for the underprivileged people that could not afford to buy
their own property. The court asked the Municipality, whi ch had a representative in court
during the proceedings, to investigate the allegations and the matter was postponed for
amongst others that investigation. The report back from the Municipality was that the
property in question was not acquired by the resp ondents through any government
housing subsidy scheme. That ground of opposition was untrue. The second ground
was that the lease agreement was a sham. It was only not in truth a lease, but was a
intended to deceive the South African Revenue Services, and they were promised by
the 1st applicant to stay at the property indefinetily. This was denied by the 1st applicant,
who pointed out that the rental was deducted weekly from the 2nd respondent’s
emoluments, when she worked on the farm. 1st respondent did no t work on the farm.
Furthermore, the lease agreement had a clause which provided for amendments, but for
such to be reduced to writing and signed by the parties. There was no written
agreement for the respondents to stay indefinitely on the farm.
[3] The alleged verbal agreement for the respondents to stay indefinitely on the farm,
exposed respondents as persons who presented a serious challenge on honesty. In his
answering affidavit in opposing the application, made under oath, the 1st applicant
alleged that the 1st applicant convinced them not to put their names on the housing
waiting list of the Municipality. The 2nd respondent made a confirmatory affidavit, in other
words, confirmed these allegations by 1st respondent. According to t heir case, t hey were
therefore not on the waiting list. This case somewhat changed during the hearing of the
matter. The investigation that the court asked the Municipality to undertake included
whether the applicants had applied for State Housing. The Mun icipality reported that the
respondents applied for registration on the waiting list on 31 January 2002. The
Municipality indicated that the respondents did not qualify for government housing
subsidy scheme at the Municipality since their applications for such housing scheme
were with Beaufort West Municipality. As regards emergency housing, the Municipality
was only able to respond once all the socio -economic information of the respondents
were determined since factors like their income determine their qua lifications or
otherwise.
[4] The Municipality presented a report on the question of emergency accommodation
provided by the Municipality. Basically, the respondents did not qualify for emergency
accommodation provided by the Municipality on two main gro unds. The first is that the
applicant should appear on the Municipality’s Housing Demand Data base. I understand
that to mean that the person must be one who met all the requirements to be eligible for
Housing provided by the Municipality’s housing schemes . The respondents did not meet
these criteria as indicated earlier in this judgment. The second was that the respondents
did not meet the Municipality’s Indigent Support Policy. To qualify, the household must
inter-alia meet the definition of an indigent h ousehold and household income, which was
currently an income of R4500 -00 per month. Although the 2nd respondent was
unemployed, the first respondent earned R9000 -00 per month. The household’s
monthly income was R9000 -00 per month. As a consequence, the res pondents did not
qualify for emergency accommodation through the Municipality.
[5] The respondents were 57 and 50 years old respectively and married to each other .
They were both did not have special needs . Thet had two children who were both in the
Prima ry school close to their home. The respondents were not forthcoming to the
Municipality when it enquired as to whther they received social grants for the children.
The children were 13 and 11 respectively. It follows that the eviction of the parents
would have an impact on the children. The first and second applicants and the
respondents were no strangers to each other and knew each other from childhood. The
first respondent’s parents and the second respondent’s father had worked on the farm .
The first resp ondent’s mother and second respondent worked in the house on the farm,
where the second respondent had worked since she was 17 years. The first applicant’s
brother had helped the first respondent to secure the employment where he was
currently working.
[6] The Trust cancelled the lease.1 The respondents did not raise a valid defence. The
respondents were unlawful occupiers.2 I am enjoined to grant an eviction order.3 Whilst I
am cognizant of the interruption of the schooling of the children, as a change of a home
necessarily would occasion, I should also consider the rights and needs of the Trust,
which includes obtaining possession, benefits and use of its own propert y.4
[7] For these reasons I make the following order:
1 Section 5(5) of the Rental Housing Act, 1999 (Act No. 50 of 1999).
2 Resnick v Government of the RSA and Another 2014 (2) SA 337 (WCC) at 339B -C.
3 Section 4(7) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (Act
No. 19 of 1998).
4 Absa Bank Ltd v Murray 2004 (2) SA 15 (C) at para 33.
(a) The 1st respondent, 2nd respondent and all those occupying through or under
them are ordered to vacate Erf 5[...], Van Wyksvlei , Wellington situated at 5 [...]
S[...] Way, Van Wyksvlei, Wellington (the property) on or before 30 June 2025.
(b) Should the 1strespondent, 2nd respondent and any of those occupying through
or under them fail to vacate the property on or before 30 June 2025, the Sheriff
or his or her Deputy are authorized to evict the 1st respondent, 2nd respondent
and all those who occupy the property through or under them on 06 July 2025.
(c) Should it be necessary, the Sheriff or his or her Deput y is authorized to
engage the services of the South African Police Services (SAPS) to assist him or
her or them in execution of their duty to evict.
(d) The 1st and 2nd respondents shall pay the costs jointly and severally, the one
to pay the other to be absolved.
____________________________
DM THULARE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT