Constitutional Court orders Western Cape woman, 85, to vacate the home she has occupied since 1947

[rvZA]

An 85-year-old woman who lives on a farm in Somerset West in the Western Cape is now forced to vacate the only home she has known since she was a child, following a Constitutional Court ruling on Tuesday.

Clara Phillips has been living in the house since 1947, when she was just 11 years old.

Willem Grobler, who brought the Constitutional Court application, purchased the property at a public auction. It was registered in his name in September 2008.

Grobler requested that Phillips vacate the property by the end of January 2009, but the elderly woman refused to leave, claiming that she "enjoyed a right of life-long [occupancy] granted to her by a previous owner," which she wanted to enforce against Grobler.

According to court papers, Grobler made various offers to Phillips to reach a compromise, including paying for relocation costs and offering alternative accommodation.

However, all these offers were declined.

This resulted in Grobler approaching the Magistrate's Court and launching an eviction application, which was granted.

However, this was later overturned by the High Court, which found that Grobler had not established that Phillips was an unlawful occupier as defined in the Prevention of Illegal Evictions and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE).

Constitutional Court orders Western Cape woman, 85, to vacate the home she has occupied since 1947 | News24

An 85-year-old woman who lives on a farm in Somerset West in the Western Cape is now forced to vacate the only home she has known since she was a child, following a Constitutional Court ruling on Tuesday.

www.news24.com

 

[rvZA]

However, the Constitutional Court has not left the elderly woman and her disabled son in the cold and instead ordered Grobler to purchase a two-bedroom dwelling in good condition that is situated within a radius of 5km from where Phillips lived.

Tshiqi said once the two-bedroom house was registered in Grobler's name, Phillips and her son "shall have the right to reside in the dwelling for the rest of Mrs Clara Phillips' life, and Mr Willem Grobler is directed to register the aforementioned right against the title deed of the dwelling".

Grobler is also directed to arrange and pay for all the relocation costs of Phillips and her son, including the removal and transportation costs of their furniture, personal goods and effects on the dwelling.

However, Phillips and her son will be liable for the costs of municipal services that are rendered by the municipality to them in respect of the dwelling and will be liable for the reasonable maintenance costs of the interior of the dwelling.

Excellent and fair ruling.

 

[air]

Excellent and fair ruling.

The bugger being, when she passes her disabled son needs to find alternative accommodation.

 

[rvZA]

The bugger being, when she passes her disabled son needs to find alternative accommodation.

Unfortunately yes, but now would be an excellent time for her to start working on this.

 

[konfab]

But the fact that Mr Grobler has repeatedly made offers of alternative accommodation to Mrs Phillips should not be taken as creating any obligation on him to offer alternative accommodation.

Ok, so the owner of a property isn't obligated to solve the homeless problem of anyone who is staying on their property unlawfully.

But then they order him to buy a property for her.

However, the Constitutional Court has not left the elderly woman and her disabled son in the cold and instead ordered Grobler to purchase a two-bedroom dwelling in good condition that is situated within a radius of 5km from where Phillips lived.

I will need to read the case to be certain, but at least in the way News24 has written it, it is absolutely contradictory.

Not to be mean, but this woman has likely had free accommodation her entire life. No provision is made for the fact that she had her entire life to save up the money she isn't spending on rent.

 

[ShaunSA]

Concourt judges should pay personally instead of being so generous with someone else's money

 

[Fulcrum29]

Concourt judges should pay personally instead of being so generous with someone else's money

It is most likely because Grobler implied to do so,

According to court papers, Grobler made various offers to Phillips to reach a compromise, including paying for relocation costs and offering alternative accommodation.

but best to read the court papers.

 

[RedViking]

Hectic. We lost our home when I was just 11ish years old. So glad now I never had one.

 

[konfab]

Basically, the reason why they ordered him to buy the flat was to cement the fact that he had already offered to do it in 2009, but the old bat refused.

On 27 November 2008, Mr Grobler’s attorneys requested Mrs Phillips, in writing, to vacate the property by 31 January 2009. She refused and alleged that she enjoyed an oral right of life-long habitatio,[2] granted by a previous owner, which was enforceable against Mr Grobler. On 5 May 2009, Mr Grobler’s attorneys again made an offer to Mrs Phillips in writing, that Mr Grobler would make available to her, at his cost, a two-bedroom flat where she could reside for the rest of her life. That offer was also rejected. On 18 May 2009, the offer was repeated in writing by Mr Grobler’s attorneys but was once again rejected.

It is an important consideration that an eviction order in these circumstances will not render Mrs Phillips homeless. The offer advanced by Mr Grobler still stands. If it is made an order of court, it will essentially mean that Mrs Phillips will only be required to relocate from one home to another in the same immediate community within Somerset West. In essence, the order will not have the effect of uprooting her from the community she has known for decades. In my view, such an order would be just and equitable.

And news24 missed the important part:

The offer is generous and should not be construed as setting a precedent on what other private landowners are obliged to do in similar circumstances. As already stated, there is no obligation on a private landowner to provide alternative accommodation to an unlawful occupier.

http://www.saflii.info/za/cases/ZACC/2022/32.html

It is absolutely ridiculous that the owner had to go through so much time and effort to take use of his own property.

 

[ShaunSA]

It is most likely because Grobler implied to do so,



but best to read the court papers.

They should have made it voluntary. Not a court order. That's just rubbish

 

[konfab]

They should have made it voluntary. Not a court order. That's just rubbish

It was voluntary, the court order just solidified the offer that was already made .

It still is absolutely ridiculous that a property owner has to go through these means to make use of their own property. Hopefully the disabled person has no children so the owner's children will eventually get their property.

 

[Fulcrum29]

They should have made it voluntary. Not a court order. That's just rubbish

This is the reason I always warn people not to create a situation, or rather a circumstance, because you are going to take on that responsibility, and I see it happen all the time. It can get very dangerous with people preying on your emotions because, at the end, you are opened up to social responsibility by allowing or enabling people to be reliant on you.

Saying this: our politicians are doing exactly this, and then the taxpayer inherits that burden. Not even the socialist leaning, as an individual, want to have this weight on their shoulders.

I am talking in general. In this case, it was Grobler’s intention in any case. What happens down the line, well... there is also a disabled son. In my view, the state needs to take better care.

 

[rietrot]

Ok, so the owner of a property isn't obligated to solve the homeless problem of anyone who is staying on their property unlawfully.

But then they order him to buy a property for her.



I will need to read the case to be certain, but at least in the way News24 has written it, it is absolutely contradictory.

Not to be mean, but this woman has likely had free accommodation her entire life. No provision is made for the fact that she had her entire life to save up the money she isn't spending on rent.

She would have had life rights. It gets registered on the title deed so all previous owners and this owner would have been aware of it.

If that is the case I'm not even sure this "compromise" is exactly fair towards her. But then you are getting into the territory of sentimental values of a old woman just wanting to die in the house she knows and loves vs. Materialistic concerns.

 

[Harmonic]

Concourt judges should pay personally instead of being so generous with someone else's money

Agreed, I mean to be fair, it seems shes already stayed on the property rent free for 15 years.

Leaches will leach though

 

[Thugscub]

EFF not going anywhere near Cape Town. Good memories for them

 

[rietrot]

What you need to know about life rights

For a stress free retirement, buying a property with life rights may be the best options. Find out what it entails.

www.privateproperty.co.za

Basic explanation of life rights. Slightly different context, but the same thing.

It's now just a question of did the current owner know about it when be bought the property. It should have been disclosed at auction. If he knew and tried to evict her anyway he is scum

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

Hectic. We lost our home when I was just 11ish years old. So glad now I never had one.

It is always in the last place you look.

 

[itareanlnotani]

It is always in the last place you look.

Not always.

Friend of mine tried to find his grandpa's house. Couldn't even find the road anymore.

Turns out a developer demolished the entire block and put up flats, even though his grandpa's place wasn't for sale.
Long court journey later, he got one of the flats.

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

Not always.

Friend of mine tried to find his grandpa's house. Couldn't even find the road anymore.

Turns out a developer demolished the entire block and put up flats, even though his grandpa's place wasn't for sale.
Long court journey later, he got one of the flats.

Doesnt seem fair at all.
He should own a new development company or at least get huge payouts.

 

[itareanlnotani]

Doesnt seem fair at all.
He should own a new development company or at least get huge payouts.

It was an uphill battle, all the paperwork for the house was in the house that no longer existed.
Was in Shanghai China. Took a few years to resolve.