A full bench at the Western Cape High Court in Cape Town has ruled against AL and other occupants in their appeal to halt eviction from a commercial property located in Gatesville.<\/p>\n
This decision, issued by Judge Dumisani Lekhuleni with the agreement of Judges Noluthando Nziweni and Pinda Njokweni, marks the end of a prolonged family conflict regarding the management and ownership of a deceased estate.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The case revolves around a property on Klipfontein Road, Gatesville, previously owned by the late AML. After her death in 2005, her daughters, NL and RL, were appointed executrixes of her estate in November 2021.<\/p>\n
During her lifetime, AML allowed her stepdaughter, A, to operate a general dealership business from the premises. The business operated since 1980 until A’s death in May 2018.<\/p>\n
The dispute arose after AL, the half-brother of the executrixes, assumed control of the property following A’s death. He subsequently began collecting monthly rental payments from a tenant, Mr Hussain, without the authority of the estate.<\/p>\n
When the executrixes attempted to gain access to the property to assess and sell it, they encountered ongoing obstruction from AL.<\/p>\n
The sisters consequently instituted eviction proceedings against him and the other occupants of the property.<\/p>\n
The matter first came before Judge Allie, who in October 2024 granted an eviction order and refused a last-minute oral application by the occupants’ legal representatives for a postponement.<\/p>\n
The occupants had sought the postponement on the basis that a genuine dispute of fact existed regarding who exercised actual control over the property. In addition, certain family members had brought an urgent application to intervene, claiming that the late stepdaughter’s estate had acquired ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription after occupying it for more than 30 years.<\/p>\n
After the Supreme Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal in March 2025, the occupants brought the matter before the full court. They argued that the court of first instance had erred by refusing to refer the matter to oral evidence and by failing to properly consider the intervention application based on acquisitive prescription.<\/p>\n
In a judgment handed by Judge Lekhuleni, the full bench rejected both arguments.<\/p>\n
Judge Lekhuleni agreed with the previous court that the application amounted to a dilatory tactic intended to delay the eviction proceedings.<\/p>\n
The full bench also rejected the substantive claim that the stepdaughter’s estate had acquired ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription. The court found no evidence indicating that the stepdaughter had possessed the property with the intention of acquiring ownership for herself.<\/p>\n
Instead, the evidence showed that the stepdaughter had operated her business on the premises with the permission of her stepmother and had used the business to support herself. She had never asserted ownership of the land itself. When the business was sold in 2018, it was the business that was sold\u2014not the property.<\/p>\n
The full bench also found that the alleged dispute of fact was not sufficiently material to justify referring the matter for oral evidence. It reiterated that a postponement is an indulgence rather than a right and that an applicant seeking one must establish proper and substantive grounds.<\/p>\n
The court noted that both of the central figures in the original dispute, the stepmother and stepdaughter, had since died. In the circumstances, the taking of oral evidence would not alter the material facts that were common cause.<\/p>\n
The high court therefore dismissed the appeal and ordered AL and the other appellants to pay the executrixes’ legal costs.<\/p>\n
The ruling clears the way for the sisters to proceed with the eviction and take the necessary steps to finalise the liquidation and distribution account of their mother’s estate.<\/p>\n