Independent Online

Friday, August 12, 2022

Like us on FacebookFollow us on TwitterView weather by locationView market indicators

Married couple wins the right to evict family of nine from their Kensington home

Western Cape High Court judge Patrick Gamble ordered the nine to move out by January 2022, or be evicted by the Sheriff of the court. File picture.

Western Cape High Court judge Patrick Gamble ordered the nine to move out by January 2022, or be evicted by the Sheriff of the court. File picture.

Published Oct 22, 2021

Share

Cape Town - A married couple, Nazeem and Nadia Nelson, who bought a house in Kensington in November 2016, have won a decision to evict their nine relatives, who have been unlawfully occupying the house for the past five years.

Western Cape High Court judge Patrick Gamble ordered the nine to move out by January 2022, or be evicted by the Sheriff of the court.

Story continues below Advertisement

The Nelsons bought the house from the widow of the house’s previous owner, the late Jalodien Williams.

The nine respondents in the case, who were unnamed in court papers, were also related to Williams and said he granted them the right to occupy the property on condition that they bore the municipal services, water and electricity costs associated with the property.

When Williams died, his widow, who was the sole heir and the executor of his estate, gave the nine respondents notice to vacate the property. They did not comply and in the interim, the property was sold out of the deceased estate to the Nelsons.

The court also heard that the Nelsons had been forced to live in a house in Mitchells Plain owned by Nadia Nelson’s previous husband whom she divorced in 2009, due to the refusal of the nine respondents to move out of the Kensington premises. The Nelsons were married in 2012.

Judge Gamble said: “The truth of the matter, the Nelsons have endured the presence of the respondents in their house for a very long time. They have, in the circumstances, truly demonstrated the spirit of ubuntu.

“However, rather than accept their generosity and the fateful consequences which their ownership ultimately brings, the respondents have entrapped the owners in myriad legal proceedings,” said Judge Gamble.

Story continues below Advertisement

During the case, the court directed that the City, the 10th respondent in the matter, try to find suitable alternative accommodation owned by the City, or of which the City was aware, which might be accessed by the nine respondents when they are evicted.

The nine other respondents did not take up the offer to apply for social housing under the auspices of the Social Housing Regulating Authority in which affordable rental housing is made available to deserving candidates depending on their levels of income, neither did they apply for the other available option, the City’s Temporary Relocation Areas.

[email protected]

Story continues below Advertisement

Share