The KwaZulu-Natal High Court has granted a woman’s application to evict her parents-in-law from a property registered in her and her late husband’s names.
Her mother-in-law is 72, while her father-in-law is 79.
The case was heard on Monday, and judgment was delivered on the same day.
In April 2021, the wife and her husband agreed that the husband’s parents would occupy their property, a ground-floor unit in Phoenix.
The condition was that the parents would pay the costs of the utilities they consumed, which they have diligently done throughout their occupation of the property.
Unfortunately, the husband died on 5 August 2021, and the wife sought to remove her parents-in-law from the property, citing financial straits due to the loss of her husband’s salary.
To ease her financial burden, she resolved to sell the property.
Eviction attempts
According to the court papers, the wife gave notice to her parents-in-law to vacate the property twice: first on 21 January 2022 and again on 9 October 2022.
The elderly parents did not leave the property. The wife proceeded to put the property up for sale and claims she found a buyer. However, the sale fell through after her parents-in-law refused to vacate the property.
She argued that her parents-in-law had sufficient resources to obtain alternative accommodation and that her two adult daughters would be able to assist them with alternative housing.
The wife said she further attempted to have them relocated to a retirement centre, but they refused.
ALSO READ: ‘Help me protect my home’: Gcina Mkhize appeals for legal assistance in house eviction case
An eTheKwini Municipality report revealed that the parents have a combined monthly income of R5 200. The parents reportedly informed the author of the report that, should their daughter-in-law obtain an eviction order, “their daughter is willing to house them”.
The municipality also offered to assist the parents, within six weeks, with a site to build “an informal dwelling” and the building material. However, the site may not be near their current residence.
Wife ‘not entirely candid’
Judge J Mossop noted that the parents’ occupation of the property solely depended on their daughter-in-law’s generosity. Legally, she is entitled to decide who occupies the property.
“While the second applicant may have demonstrated a generosity of spirit that permitted the respondents to occupy the immovable property while her husband was still alive, now that he has passed on, it appears that her liberality of spirit has also left her,” the judge noted.
“Her change of heart towards the respondents’ occupation of the immovable property is, however, a change that brings no credit to her. Indeed, it tends to suggest that she is capable of being construed as being mean-spirited, for the respondents, in losing their son and benefactor, have suffered a loss as big as, if not greater than, the loss that she has suffered.”
The financial burden of the wife was also in question after the parents said in court papers that she had not been “entirely candid” about the extent of her income and financial standing.
ALSO READ: Court dismisses eviction bid after improper service on child
“… She neglected to inform the court that she, in fact, owns two other units in the same building in which the immovable property is located. She also derives an undisclosed income from the occupants of these two units,” noted the judge.
“While she has indicated that she has met hard times following the loss of the deceased, she has made no attempt to disclose the extent of her income in her founding affidavit and makes no attempt to address the respondents’ allegations regarding her income in her replying affidavit.”
Wife wins bid
Judge J Mossop ordered that the parents vacate the property by 31 July 2026 and continue to pay all utility costs until then.
He further said he suspected the deceased would not have approved the eviction of the parents or intended them to pay their relocation costs.
He ordered that the wife pay at least R10 000 towards the relocation costs, provided that their new accommodation is within the greater Durban area.
“In the event of the first and second respondents failing or refusing to comply with paragraph 1 of this order, the sheriff of this court be and is hereby authorised and empowered to forthwith eject them, and any other persons claiming a right of occupation of the immovable property, from the said immovable property.”
READ NEXT: Court grants Cape Town permission to evict foreigners ‘demanding’ relocation to Canada
