A Hendricks v M Hendricks and Others

The appellant, Annie Hendricks, sold her residential property to her son but retained a lifelong registered right of habitation over the property. After her son married the first respondent, relations between the appellant and her daughter-in-law deteriorated, causing the appellant to leave the property temporarily. Despite attempts to resolve the dispute and her assertion of the right of habitation, the first respondent remained in occupation after divorcing the appellant’s son. The appellant sought to evict the respondents under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act). The magistrates’ court and the High Court held that the respondents were not unlawful occupiers. The matter came before the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the High Court and magistrates’ court were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Somerset West Magistrates’ Court for finalisation of the eviction application after considering the factors in section 4(7) of the PIE Act.

The case clarifies that holders of limited real rights such as habitatio can be 'persons in charge' under the PIE Act and may seek eviction even against registered owners. It affirms that ownership yields to registered personal servitudes and that owners can be unlawful occupiers in certain circumstances.