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

[OhYeah84]

Excellent and fair ruling.

Probably going to cost the guy more now as it is.

 

[rvZA]

Probably going to cost the guy more now as it is.

He was willing to do that right from the onset. He made the same offer on numerous occasions in order to get the use of his newly purchased property. So, it may have been something he budgeted for.

 

[konfab]

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

I don't think she had life rights to the existing property. The court referred to her as an unlawful occupier.

She was basically being protected by PIE.

 

[Wrath of Khan]

put her in a caravan and tow her to Lethuli house.. or just wait till she goes to the shops and drive a bulldozer through the house and plant miellies over it

 

[rietrot]

I don't think she had life rights to the existing property. The court referred to her as an unlawful occupier.

She was basically being protected by PIE.

"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."

This paragraph suggest that she did have life rights, but it's not 100% clear.

 

[The Free Radical]

All in all, from the High Court, Supreme Court of Appeal, and finally to the Constitutional Court, it must have cost the land owner at least 3 bar just for legal fees, never mind having to purchase a two bedroom home above this.

The moral of the story is .... never allow bywooners to reside on your property unless you want to go through years of legal tussles at great cost and sleepless nights, or in the worst case scenario, set yourself up for violent retaliation when you try invoke your ownership rights.

 

[Hemi300c]

Honestly, I would have thought it should be the sellers obligation.

 

[The Free Radical]

Personally, I strongly believe this social justice ruling is total BS.
She freeloaded for decades without paying a cent in rent, and now scores a free home.
How is this justice? This is basically Expropriation Without Compensation (wealth transfer) dressed up differently.
This unanimous, full bench judgment is the strongest indication yet that the Con Court will do the ANC's bidding and uphold EWC when it becomes law and challenged.

 

[konfab]

"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."

This paragraph suggest that she did have life rights, but it's not 100% clear.

That is a different thing to what you said.

 

[konfab]

Personally, I strongly believe this social justice ruling is total BS.
She freeloaded for decades without paying a cent in rent, and now scores a free home.
How is this justice? This is basically Expropriation Without Compensation (wealth transfer) dressed up differently.
This unanimous, full bench judgment is the strongest indication yet that the Con Court will do the ANC's bidding and uphold EWC when it becomes law and challenged.

Have you read the thread or the judgement? News24 gave their typical low quality version.

The court made it very clear that the owner isn't obligated to provide free housing. But in the circumstances of the case, the private owner was willing to do help the person, so that is what the court ordered. She doesn't own the flat that the court ordered the property owner to buy. The court ordered the property owner to register a life right for her, so she can stay in the house till she dies, and has to look after it, pay for all electricity and water.
From the judgement:

Who then bears the obligation to provide alternative accommodation? Section 4(7) of PIE clearly states that such obligation lies with a “municipality, or other organ of state or another land owner”. PIE was enacted to prevent the arbitrary deprivation of property and is not designed to allow for the expropriation of land from a private landowner from whose property the eviction is being sought. In Ndlovu,[15] the Supreme Court of Appeal held that “[t]he effect of PIE is not to expropriate the landowner and cannot be used to expropriate someone indirectly and the landowner retains the protection of [section] 25 of the Bill of Rights”.[16] This Court, in Blue Moonlight, held that “a private owner has no obligation to provide free housing”[17] and that “nlawful occupation results in a deprivation of property under [section] 25(1)”[18] of the Constitution. Section 26(2) of the Constitution guarantees the right to access to adequate housing and places a positive obligation on the state to realise that right.


[38] Of course when dealing with considerations of justice and equity, the capacity of a landowner to provide alternative accommodation and the peculiar circumstances of an evictee are relevant. 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. In Port Elizabeth Municipality[19] this Court stated that an offer of alternative accommodation is not a pre-condition for the granting of an eviction order but rather one of the factors to be considered by a court.[20] In City of Johannesburg[21] the Supreme Court of Appeal held that “an eviction order in circumstances where no alternative accommodation is provided is far less likely to be just and equitable than one that makes careful provision for alternative housing

Constitutional court is loaded with SJWs, but they made the right decision here.

 

[Bigjay84]

He did offer her an alternative, so a fair outcome only the lawyers profited as usual

 

[Nerfherder]

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

Depends on the flat... but also nice to at least get something out of it.

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

He did offer her an alternative, so a fair outcome only the lawyers profited as usual

Very antisemetic.