Man’s bid to evict ex-lover from his house heads for a court showdown

A Cape Town man’s long-running battle to remove his former girlfriend from his property is far from over after the high court ruled that key disputes between the pair must first be tested through oral evidence.

The man approached the Western Cape High Court seeking an eviction order against his ex-partner, arguing that she no longer had any legal right to stay at his Kuils River property.

But instead of granting the eviction, the court found that there were too many unanswered questions about the circumstances under which the woman moved into the home and whether she had any legal claim to remain there.

The dispute stems from the breakdown of a romantic relationship between the parties. The homeowner claimed that the woman was allowed to stay in the property under a verbal rental agreement of three months.

According to him, she agreed to pay body corporate levies and municipal accounts while occupying the home.

He told the court that the arrangement was later extended. However, he alleged that the woman failed to meet her obligations, causing him to cancel the agreement and demand that she leave the property.

The woman painted a very different picture.

She denied that any rental agreement ever existed and claimed that the property was acquired for her benefit while the couple were in a serious relationship. She further argued that they had been engaged and that a universal partnership existed between them, giving her rights linked to the property.

The court noted that these competing versions raised serious factual disputes.

Acting judge S Yake found that the homeowner was unable to provide important details regarding the alleged rental agreement, including when it was concluded. The court also noted that he did not challenge the woman’s claim that she had moved into the property in July 2022.

Another issue highlighted by the court was the lengthy delay before the homeowner demanded that the woman vacate the property.

The judge said there was no adequate explanation for why she remained in the home for such a long period if her occupation was based on a short-term rental arrangement.

The woman also raised objections relating to the homeowner’s wife and her involvement in the case. She argued that the wife should have been formally joined to the proceedings and questioned whether there had been a conflict of interest because the wife initially acted as the homeowner’s legal representative.

The court dismissed both objections, finding that they did not prevent the matter from proceeding.

However, the judge concluded that the central question — whether the woman is unlawfully occupying the property — could not be decided on written affidavits alone.

“The well-established principle is that where such a dispute is reasonably foreseeable, the matter should not be pursued by way of motion proceedings. Instead, the applicant ought to have referred the matter for oral hearing or proceeded by way of action, thereby allowing for the resolution of factual disputes through oral evidence and cross-examination,” read the judgment.

As a result, the matter has now been referred for an oral hearing where witnesses will testify and face cross-examination.

The hearing is expected to focus on the true nature of the parties’ relationship, whether a rental agreement existed and whether the woman has any legal right to remain in the property.

For now, the ex-partner remains in the home while the legal battle continues, with the final outcome set to be decided after oral evidence is heard.

Sowetan