This recent judgment out of the Western Cape High Court (delivered 17 August 2026) is an example of how messy deceased estates can get - and how family disputes can become a nightmare for third-party property buyers.

Kids refuse to vacate after father sells property

• A married couple owned a family home in Robertson, Western Cape.
• The mother died in 2014. Under a 1995 joint will, the father inherited her 50% share, making him the sole registered owner.
• In 2022, the father sold the property to third-party buyers.
• The adult children refused to vacate the property, forcing the new owners to apply for an eviction order in the local Magistrates' Court.
• To stall the eviction, the children rushed to the High Court. They claimed the father had no right to sell because a different will supposedly existed, which left the mother's 50% share directly to them.

The Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the children's application with a punitive costs order. The judge highlighted several fatal flaws in their legal strategy:

• The children used motion proceedings (relying only on written affidavits) despite knowing there was a massive dispute over whether this "second will" ever actually existed.
• The children failed to set out their proper case in their founding affidavit. Instead, they tried to introduce new facts in their replying affidavit and heads of argument - a strict procedural violation.
• The applicants wanted the court to legally read new words into the accepted 1995 will, but they failed to produce the alleged newer will to back up their claims.
• The court recognised the High Court application for what it was - a tactical, collateral move designed specifically to frustrate and delay the pending eviction proceedings.

Takeaways

• Beware of occupied properties: If you are buying a property out of a deceased estate or one currently occupied by family members of the seller, be prepared for potential eviction battles. Launching secondary High Court challenges - like suddenly disputing a transfer or a will - is a common stalling tactic that can tie you up in legal fees.
• Estate planning is critical: Families must ensure that wills are clear, updated, and safely lodged with a trusted executor. Ambiguity often leads to expensive, drawn-out litigation.
• If you ever need to challenge a property transfer or an estate's administration, your founding affidavit must contain all your essential facts. You cannot build a new case as the litigation unfolds.

Here is a breakdown of the legal obligations imposed on landlords by the Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 (RHA).

Written Leases & Receipts

• While verbal leases are valid under the current active legislation, a landlord must reduce the lease to writing if the tenant requests it.
  • Any applicable house rules and the defect list must be attached as annexures to the lease.
  • Be aware that the Rental Housing Amendment Act 35 of 2014 contains several provisions that are still uncommenced. Once these are officially proclaimed into law, they will make written leases mandatory for all rentals and introduce even stricter, formalised habitability standards.
• Landlords must provide a dated, written receipt for every payment received. It must clearly state the property address, the period covered, and whether the payment is for rent, arrears, or a deposit.

The Deposit & Interest

• If a deposit is required, the landlord must invest it in an interest-bearing account with a financial institution. The rate cannot be lower than a standard savings account rate.
  • The tenant has the right to request written proof of the accrued interest during the lease period.
• Refund timelines:
  • If there are no damages or arrears, the deposit plus accrued interest must be refunded within 7 days of the lease expiring.
  • If deductions are made for repairs, the balance must be refunded within 14 days of the property being restored to the landlord.
  • The landlord must make all repair receipts available to the tenant for inspection to prove the costs incurred.

Mandatory Inspections

• Ingoing inspection: The landlord and tenant must jointly inspect the property before occupation to register existing defects.
• Outgoing inspection: A joint inspection must be arranged within three days prior to the lease expiring.
  • Crucial point: If the landlord fails to conduct this joint inspection in the presence of the tenant, it is legally deemed an acknowledgement that the property is in a good state of repair. The landlord then loses any further claim against the tenant and must refund the full deposit plus interest.

Privacy and Access

• A landlord has a right to inspect the property, but only in a reasonable manner and after giving reasonable notice.
• A landlord may not search a tenant's property, seize possessions, lock a tenant out, or shut off utilities without a court order or Tribunal ruling. Unlawfully shutting off utilities or locking out a tenant is a criminal offence.

Maintenance and Habitability

• The landlord is legally obligated to provide a dwelling in a habitable condition and to maintain the existing structure of the property.
• If a tenant lodges a dispute with the Rental Housing Tribunal, the landlord cannot evict the tenant and must continue to effect necessary maintenance while the dispute is pending (up to a period of three months).

If you are renting out property, ignorance of these provisions will not protect you at the Tribunal. Feel free to share any specific Tribunal experiences below.

A penthouse in the new ‘The Marlow on Mill’ apartment block in Newlands, Cape Town, has been sold for a record R15.9 million. “This is a record sale of a penthouse in an apartment block in the Southern Suburbs,” says Samantha Nel, Pam Golding Properties Western Cape area manager. “The previous record for an apartment in these suburbs was R12.65 million, paid for a similar apartment in ‘Newlands Peak’ when it was launched in 2020.”

https://preview.redd.it/i7kksn0gikjh1.png?width=1500&format=png&auto=webp&s=122b447db93da2a18d3e861ba0ff4ea27ae3fc9d

The buyers of The Marlow on Mill penthouse are from the UK, and they plan to live here during their visits to South Africa.

This record price reflects the strong demand in Cape Town for well-located, high-quality sectional title homes that combine excellent security with ample parking and desirable lifestyle amenities, says Dr Andrew Golding, chief executive of the Pam Golding Property group.

"The Marlow on Mill presents buyers with a rare opportunity to secure a home in a prime location close to leading schools, shopping destinations and lifestyle attractions, while offering convenient access to both the city and surrounding natural spaces. It also represents an attractive investment opportunity, with strong prospects for capital appreciation driven by its desirability and limited supply, supported by anticipated robust resale demand and healthy rental returns."

The Marlow on Mill, with 281 units, is the first significant new residential development in Newlands for several years. It is close to the Sports Science Institute and Newlands sport stadiums, and apartments will have views of Table Mountain.

Shelly Keys, also an area manager for Pam Golding Properties Western Cape, says its appeal lies in its contemporary design and high-quality finishes offering a modern, low-maintenance lifestyle. The central location provides easy access to shopping, dining and commercial hubs, as well as leading schools, universities, medical facilities and major transport routes, including the M3 and M5.

Sales of close to R350 million have been concluded so far, and Keys says that the majority of buyers are investors, purchasing with the intention of short-term or long-term rental income. The second largest group consists of leisure buyers, who plan to use their units as holiday homes and generate additional income through short-term letting when they are not in residence.

Buyers to date include a mix of residents of the Western Cape and other provinces, while foreign interest has emanated mainly from the USA and UK, as well as Germany. Around 70 percent of recent buyers are middle-aged or mature, with retirees and younger adults making up the balance.

With cape town absolutely exploding, what's the medium to long term prospects of Tijgerhof / Koeberg road? It's nestled between Woodbridge island and Century city... But then there's Rugby to one side.

Has anyone lived there? Care to share your experience?

Sharing a recent South Gauteng High Court judgment (handed down on 11 August 2026) that provides clarity on the PIE Act, specifically regarding higher-end residential rentals and delay tactics. For anyone dealing with defaulting tenants trying to exploit technicalities, this is a useful precedent to add to your legislative resources.

Citation: Thusi v Steyn City Properties (Pty) Limited and Another (2024/052208) [2026] ZAGPJHC 901

Tenant refuses to vacate after lease cancelled

A tenant renting a unit in Steyn City for R23,840 per month had his lease cancelled in March 2024. He refused to vacate, and the landlord applied for an eviction order under the PIE Act. By June 2025, the tenant’s arrears had climbed to over R463,000.

After the eviction was granted, the tenant filed a late application for leave to appeal, relying heavily on two technical defences. The court rejected both and refused condonation for the late filing.

Key Legal Takeaways

• Municipal reports are not always mandatory: The tenant argued the eviction was invalid because the City of Johannesburg did not file a report on alternative accommodation. The court clarified that under section 4(6) of the PIE Act - which applies when proceedings are initiated within six months of the occupation becoming unlawful - a municipal report is not a strict precondition. The municipality's participation is primarily required when an eviction might leave vulnerable occupiers homeless. Given that this tenant was a businessman renting in an affluent estate, there was no risk of homelessness, and the court could proceed without the report.
• Minor naming errors are not fatal: The tenant tried to have the case thrown out because the notice of motion cited the landlord as "Steyn City (Pty) Ltd" instead of "Steyn City Properties (Pty) Ltd". The court ruled this was a clear, curable misnomer that caused no prejudice.
• Punitive costs for delay tactics: The court noted the tenant's pattern of delivering late affidavits to force postponements, prolonging his occupation while arrears mounted. Consequently, the court awarded costs against the tenant on the punitive attorney and client scale.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces that the PIE Act is designed to prevent homelessness and protect the vulnerable, not to provide affluent tenants with endless administrative loopholes to avoid paying rent. It also firmly limits the application of previous, more restrictive interpretations (like Mofamadi v Mokhuane) when dealing with section 4(6) evictions.

Here is a breakdown of a notable Mpumalanga High Court judgment (Verwey N.O and Others v EMFN Projects (Pty) Ltd and Another [2026] ZAMPMHC 56) handed down on 12 August 2026. It highlights the ongoing tension between a landowner's property rights and an ESTA occupier's constitutional right to human dignity.

On 1 July 2026, a municipality contractor entered 3 privately owned farms to excavate and build toilets for long-standing farm occupiers. The farm owners explicitly refused consent and pointed out that the municipality had no registered servitude and no expropriation order to enter the land.

The owners launched an urgent High Court application demanding that the builders vacate the property, remove all materials, and close the trenches, arguing that the municipality's actions constituted trespassing and spoliation.

The Legal Issues

The court was asked to determine two main questions:

1. Did the municipality unlawfully dispossess the farm owners of their land (spoliation)?
2. Is a landowner's consent a strict prerequisite for a municipality to install basic sanitation infrastructure for lawful farm occupiers?

The Court's Decision

The High Court dismissed the landowners' application, establishing a few critical points for property owners to keep in mind:

• Spoliation Failed: To succeed with a mandament van spolie (spoliation order), an applicant must prove they were in peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property and were unlawfully deprived of it. The court found that the occupiers - not the owners - were in peaceful possession of the specific portions of the farms where the toilets were being built. Because the occupiers consented to the construction, the owners were not unlawfully deprived of their possession.
• Dignity Overrides Consent: Relying on the Constitutional Court precedent set in Daniels v Scribante, the court affirmed that occupiers have a right to living conditions consistent with human dignity. Because the occupiers lacked the financial means to build the toilets themselves, the municipality was fulfilling its constitutional mandate to provide basic services. The court ruled that allowing a landowner to block this simply by refusing consent would completely undermine the occupiers' constitutional rights.
• Meaningful Engagement is Mandatory: While the court ruled that an owner's consent is not a prerequisite for improvements related to human dignity, it emphasised that parties cannot act unbridled. The court ordered the landowners and the municipality to engage meaningfully on the logistics - such as building plans, contractor access times, and movement on the farm - to balance the rights of both parties.

Takeaway for Property Owners

If you have ESTA occupiers on your agricultural land, your Section 25 property rights do not grant you an absolute veto over basic municipal service delivery aimed at restoring human dignity (like water and basic sanitation). While you retain full ownership and control of the broader property, you cannot use the withholding of consent as a legal shield to prevent occupiers from receiving basic statutory and constitutional rights.

Here is an interesting recent judgement from the Mpumalanga High Court that deals with the PIE Act (Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act) and what happens when an occupant tries to resist eviction by disputing the underlying sale of the property.

The case (Lancelot Properties (Pty) Ltd v Gerretsen and Others [2026] ZAMPMHC 43) centres on a farm in Mpumalanga. The property was originally owned by a family trust, later transferred to a company, and subsequently liquidated.

Lancelot Properties (the Applicant) purchased the farm at a public auction conducted by the liquidators and successfully registered the transfer in July 2024.

However, the First Respondent had been living on the property since 1979. She refused to vacate, claiming she was a trust beneficiary and arguing that the entire liquidation and sale process was unlawful and fraudulent.

The Legal Arguments

• The Owner (Lancelot Properties) relied on its registered title deed, the court orders authorising the sale, and the fact that there was no lease agreement in place. They also pointed out that the occupant was not vulnerable - she was not elderly, indigent, or at risk of homelessness.
• The Occupant raised extensive disputes about the validity of the new owner's title, alleging fraud and pointing to ongoing criminal investigations. She claimed the PIE Act did not apply to her situation and raised procedural objections.

The Court's Ruling

The Court ruled in favour of the registered owner and granted the eviction. Here are the key points from the decision:

1. Registered Title Prevails: The judge noted that while the occupant's allegations of fraud were serious, they had not been substantiated by a court order setting aside the transfer. Until a competent court officially sets aside the title deed, the registered owner has the legal right to vindicate their property.
2. The PIE Act requires courts to consider all relevant circumstances to determine if an eviction is "just and equitable". A landowner must prove ownership, unlawful occupation, and strict adherence to procedural steps (like serving a section 4(2) notice).
3. The court looked closely at the occupant's personal situation. It was proven that she had no dependants, owned other income-producing property, and would not be left homeless by the eviction.
4. The Order: The occupants were declared unlawful and given 90 days to vacate - failing which, the Sheriff of the Court is authorised to evict them. (Note: The judge briefly mentioned a "six months" period as equitable in the body of the judgement, but the final, binding court order strictly stipulated a 90-day limit).

Key Takeaways

If you buy a distressed or liquidated property at auction, you may inherit occupants who feel they were wronged by the liquidation and dispute the sale itself. However, this judgement reinforces that as long as the property is legally registered in your name, the court will generally uphold your right to evict under the PIE Act - provided you follow all procedural steps perfectly and the occupants are not a vulnerable group facing absolute homelessness.

The importance of having a valid lease in place. 

Needing to invest in property with X amount of capital.

Purchase five sectional title flats or three full title houses in Pretoria East.

Sectional title properties seem to have a lot of complications, estate levies, special levies on top of rates and taxes.

The market is just flooded with these flats or retirement homes, not many full title houses within required price range. We are not in a hurry to purchase would rather find the best opportunities but they seem to disappear as soon as they had appeared.

What have you experienced owning a sectional title property?