The respondent occupied a residential property in Queenstown owned by a close corporation of which her alleged customary-law husband, now deceased, had been the sole member. She occupied the property without a lease and paid no rental. After the deceased’s death, the executor of the deceased estate sought to evict her under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE), contending that she was an unlawful occupier and that any right she had ended upon the deceased’s death. The respondent resisted eviction, alleging that she had entered into a customary marriage with the deceased in 1985, that lobola had been agreed and paid, and that the deceased had provided her with accommodation throughout their relationship. She claimed that, as a customary-law widow, she had a right to occupy the property. The High Court dismissed the eviction application, finding that a valid customary marriage existed and that the respondent had a right of occupation. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal against the refusal of the eviction order succeeded. The High Court order was set aside and the respondent was ordered to vacate the property within 12 months, failing which the sheriff was authorised to evict her. The appeal against the refusal of the declaratory order was dismissed. Costs, including the costs of two counsel, were ordered to be borne by the deceased estate.
The case clarifies that customary marriage does not confer real rights in immovable property and that a customary-law wife or widow has, at most, a personal maintenance claim against the estate. It affirms that PIE cannot be used to indirectly expropriate property or override ownership where no legal right of occupation exists, and it provides guidance on the exercise of the 'just and equitable' discretion in eviction matters involving alleged customary-law relationships.