Three tenants currently living ‘illegally’ in a Llandudno property have won their case in court to continue living on the property while an eviction application to have them removed is set to be heard later this year.
Cape Town - Three tenants currently living “illegally” in a Llandudno property have won their case in court to continue living on the property while an eviction application to have them removed is set to be heard later this year.
Housekeepers Olwethu Sokanyile and Silvester Siweya, together with entrepreneur Darren Russel, were granted their sought relief in which an interim interdict was granted preventing the legal homeowner and respondent in the matter, Keith Broad, from having them removed from the property before the hearing of the eviction application during November.
According to judgment documents, Russel had employed Sokanyile and Siweya as hospitality providers and house managers while he ran a profitable business by subletting the property he occupied to tenants as luxury accommodation on a short-term basis.
The three have been denied access to the property since July 24 after Broad enlisted the services of a private security company to have the trio removed from his home as he averred that Russel was no longer a lawful tenant of the property.
After having the locks changed at the home, the private security have now moved in to the property, to prevent access.
Acting Western Cape High court Judge Phillipa van Zyl, said: “(Russel) is the lessee of the property in terms of a lease agreement concluded between him and the first respondent on October 15, 2021.
“The lease was to endure until October 14, 2023, and was concluded for the purposes of allowing Russel to conduct a short-term rental accommodation business.
“There are currently various disputes between Russel and Broad in relation to whether Russel had contravened the lease and whether the lease has been validly cancelled (as a result of the alleged contraventions). I do not have to determine those disputes,” said Judge Van Zyl.
Judge Van Zyl further said she did not doubt that the actions of forcible removal was Broad’s “dissatisfaction with the delay in finalising his eviction application”.
“He (Broad) bemoans the fact that Russel is not currently paying rental and that he (Broad) thus has an increased financial burden in respect of the property ... Broad argues that Russel is no longer a lawful tenant of the property.
“This does not matter for present purposes, as I do not have to determine the lawfulness of his tenancy. “Broad further submits that Russel does not provide sufficient evidence as to his possession of the property.
“The latter is said ‘generally’ to reside at the property, but nothing is said about what this qualification to Russel’s residential status means, how often he ‘generally resides’ at the property, when last he accessed the property or had any measure of control over it.
“Merely having an alleged (and disputed) right to occupy a property without actually maintaining possession thereof is not sufficient to justify the relief that is sought,” said Judge Van Zyl.
In judgment and granting relief sought, Judge Van Zyl said the property “is their home for the time being and their personal possessions, including Sokanyile’s dog, are there”.
“They reside there and are in possession of the property for that purpose and with that intention quite apart from the work that they do for Russel in cleaning and maintaining the property. With the salaries they earn they support their families. Russel has no other property available at which to provide housing for Sokanyile and Siweya.
“The property is their home at least for as long as Russel is the tenant. “Following the hearing of oral argument, I agreed with the applicants’ submission that this was a classic case of spoliation. I also agreed that the applicants have satisfied the requirements for the grant of an interim interdict,” said Judge Van Zyl.
Cape Times