Mr Willem Grobler purchased a residential property at 59 Dummer Street, Somerset West in 2008 with the intention of housing his elderly parents. Mrs Clara Phillips, then in her 80s, had lived on the property since 1947 and resided there with her disabled adult son, Adam Phillips. Mrs Phillips claimed an oral lifelong right of habitatio allegedly granted by a previous owner. After purchasing the property, Mr Grobler repeatedly requested Mrs Phillips to vacate and offered to provide alternative accommodation at his cost, but she refused. Mr Grobler instituted eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE). The Magistrates’ Court rejected the alleged right of habitatio as unregistered and unenforceable, found Mrs Phillips to be an unlawful occupier, and granted an eviction order. On appeal, the High Court overturned the eviction, holding that Mrs Phillips had not been given reasonable notice and that she was protected under the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA). The Supreme Court of Appeal disagreed on ESTA’s applicability and unlawful occupation but nonetheless upheld the High Court’s refusal to evict, finding eviction not just and equitable given Mrs Phillips’ vulnerability. Mr Grobler appealed to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal was granted and the appeal was upheld. The order of the Supreme Court of Appeal was set aside and replaced with an order directing Mr Grobler to purchase a suitable two-bedroom dwelling within 5 km of the property, to register a lifelong right of residence in favour of Mrs Phillips and her son, to pay relocation costs, and providing that eviction from the original property would occur only if they failed to take occupation of the new dwelling within six months. No order as to costs was made.
The case clarifies the proper application of section 4(7) of PIE and reinforces that vulnerability alone does not justify indefinite occupation of another’s property. It affirms that courts must balance occupiers’ rights with ownership rights and that alternative accommodation provided by a private owner can render eviction just and equitable. The judgment also corrects misconceptions about the role of appellate courts in exercising discretion in eviction matters and limits reliance on an occupier’s subjective preference to remain.