A Hendricks v M Hendricks and Others

The appellant, Annie Hendricks, sold her residential property to her son, the second respondent, in 1990 while reserving a lifelong registered right of habitation over the property. The son later married the first respondent in community of property. Due to severe family conflict, the appellant left the property but did not abandon her right of habitation. After the son and first respondent divorced, the first respondent remained in occupation of the property with her children and other family members. Despite withdrawal of any consent to occupation and repeated demands to vacate, the first respondent continued to occupy the property. The appellant applied for eviction 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 appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was upheld with costs. The orders of the High Court and magistrates’ court were set aside. The matter was remitted to the Somerset West Magistrates’ Court to finalise the eviction application after conducting an enquiry under section 4(7) of the PIE Act.

This case clarifies the relationship between ownership and limited real rights in the context of eviction proceedings. It establishes that holders of rights of habitation (and by extension usufruct or usus) can be 'persons in charge' under the PIE Act and may seek eviction of even the registered owner. The judgment is significant for eviction jurisprudence and the interpretation of 'unlawful occupier', reinforcing that ownership does not automatically confer a right to occupation where limited real rights exist.