A family occupying a luxury property in Camps Bay, Cape Town, has been ordered by the Western Cape High Court to vacate the home by the end of November after withholding more than R1.4 million in rental payments amid a dispute over alleged maintenance problems.
Acting Judge Waheeda Amien granted an eviction order against the tenant, A, her husband, their children, and other occupants of the property, ruling that the lease agreement had been validly cancelled and that the occupants had no legal right to remain in the home.
The court ordered them to vacate the property by 1pm on November 30, 2026. If they fail to comply, the sheriff is authorised to evict them on December 2, with assistance from the South African Police Service if necessary.
The judgment was delivered on October 12, 2026.
Tenant withheld rent over alleged maintenance problems
According to the judgment, the property owner, Tania dos Santos Sousa Costa, entered into a written lease agreement with A in July 2020, facilitated by rental agency Remax Living.
The tenancy was subsequently extended through several addendums, with the final agreement signed in March 2023 extending the lease for three years, from August 1, 2024, to July 31, 2027.
Under the extended agreement, the monthly rental increased from R60,000 for the first year to R62,500 from August 2025, and R65,000 from August 2026.
However, A raised complaints during 2024 about what she alleged was the owner's failure to properly maintain the property.
She subsequently withheld rental payments from August 2024, depositing money into the trust account of her attorneys instead.
The judgment states that her attorneys provided a payment schedule indicating that R393,000 had been deposited into their trust account. It was unclear how much of that money remained in the account at the time of the proceedings.
By June 2026, the outstanding rental for the period from August 2024 to June 2026 amounted to R1,407,500.
The owner also alleged that A had sublet part of the property to other occupants without her consent and had allowed it to be used for commercial purposes.
Owner cancelled lease after tenant failed to remedy breach
On March 4, 2025, the owner issued a notice informing the tenant that withholding rent constituted a material breach of the lease agreement.
The tenant was given seven days to remedy the breach, including making a payment of R300,000 towards the rental arrears and undertaking to stop subletting the property without consent.
The notice warned that failure to comply would result in the cancellation of the lease.
After the breach remained unresolved, the owner issued a cancellation notice on March 26, 2025, informing the tenant that the agreement had been cancelled and that the occupants were required to vacate the property by April 30 that year.
They remained in occupation, prompting the owner to approach the High Court for an eviction order.
A, together with her husband and the other occupants, opposed the application, arguing that the Consumer Protection Act applied to the lease agreement and that the owner was required to give them 20 business days to remedy the breach.
Their argument was that the cancellation was invalid because the required notice period had not been provided.
However, the court rejected this argument.
Court rules Consumer Protection Act does not apply
The court considered whether the owner rented out the property in the ordinary course of business, a requirement relevant to determining whether the Consumer Protection Act applied.
The respondents argued that the owner rented out the home to generate income to pay her children's school fees, meaning the rental agreement fell within the scope of the legislation.
The owner had relocated to Angola for work purposes.
However, Amien found that the fact that the property was rented out to generate income did not automatically mean the owner was conducting a rental business.
Amien found that the owner was not in the business of letting property for consideration and that the lease was a once-off transaction rather than the letting of property from a rental housing portfolio.
The Consumer Protection Act therefore did not apply to the agreement.
The judge also rejected the argument that the cancellation notice was invalid, noting that the notice of breach and the cancellation notice had been issued separately.
The court concluded that the lease had been validly cancelled and that the respondents were unlawfully occupying the property.
Rental Housing Tribunal rejected tenant's claim
The tenant had also lodged complaints with the Western Cape Rental Housing Tribunal, seeking a 30% reduction in rent because of the alleged maintenance problems.
The tribunal delivered its ruling on August 19, 2026, before the High Court judgment was finalised.
It directed the occupants to provide the owner, her representatives and appointed contractors with reasonable access to inspect the property and carry out maintenance and remedial work falling within the owner's obligations.
The tribunal also dismissed the tenants' claim for a rental reduction.
It took into account their continued occupation and economic use of the property, as well as their failure to provide reasonable access needed to investigate and address the alleged defects.
Amien said that although there might be maintenance issues requiring attention, the owner had not been given reasonable access to assess the problems and determine what repairs were needed.
The respondents therefore had no valid defence to their continued occupation of the property, the judge found.
Judge considers affordability and children's schooling
Because the tenant had occupied the property for more than six months, the court was required to consider whether eviction would be just and equitable under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
This included considering the occupants' personal circumstances, their ability to find alternative accommodation and the interests of their minor children.
The judge noted that the respondents had provided limited information about their financial circumstances and had not completed a City of Cape Town questionnaire used to assess whether an eviction would leave them homeless.
However, the court considered several factors when assessing whether they could secure alternative accommodation.
These included the location of the property in Camps Bay, one of Cape Town's most expensive residential areas, the rental income allegedly generated through subletting part of the property, and the tenant's previous offer to purchase the home for R11 million.
The owner had rejected the purchase offer.
Amien found that the evidence indicated the respondents could afford alternative accommodation and that their eviction would not render them homeless.
The judge also considered the financial prejudice suffered by the owner, who had been left without rental payments while the occupants continued living in the property.
The outstanding rent had accumulated to more than R1.4 million.
Eviction delayed to protect children's education
Despite finding that eviction was justified, the court took the interests of the couple's minor children into account when determining when they should leave the property.
The court was informed that the children attended private schools in Cape Town and that the eldest was in Grade 12.
Amien noted that the final examinations for Grade 12 learners were due to conclude by November 27, 2026.
Ordering the family to leave immediately could disrupt the children's schooling, particularly that of the eldest child, who was preparing for final examinations.
The judge therefore balanced the owner's right to recover possession of her property against the respondents' ability to find alternative accommodation and the children's educational needs.
The court concluded that allowing the family to remain until November 30 would provide sufficient time for the examinations to be completed while ensuring that the owner was not required to continue providing accommodation without receiving rent.
The eviction order was consequently granted, with the sheriff authorised to remove the occupants on December 2 if they fail to vacate by the deadline.
The court ordered A and her husband to pay the costs of the application.
IOL News