Nomonde Zondi|Published
A Durban High Court judge dismissed a mother’s urgent application to stop her eviction, finding that she had not provided sufficient information about her occupation of the property or the elderly person allegedly living there.
The woman argued that she had not been informed of the eviction proceedings, which began in 2025, and that her removal from the property would disrupt her family’s living arrangements and negatively affect her son’s education.
However, the court found that she had provided insufficient information about her occupation of the property, including how she came to live there. She had told the court that the property was close to her son’s school in Umhlanga.
Judge Mbuzeni Mathenjwa said the court had treated the application, brought against the sheriff of the High Court, the eThekwini Municipality and liquidator Reinette Steynburg, as urgent because of its implications for the minor child, who lives with his mother and attends school in the vicinity of the property.
The mother had asked the court to consider the child’s best interests, arguing that an eviction would disrupt his education.
However, Mathenjwa said the argument had to be considered within the broader context of Section 28 of the Constitution, which protects children’s rights and requires their best interests to be given paramount importance in every matter concerning them.
The judge said parents and guardians had an obligation to provide appropriate family care, including safe and suitable accommodation for their children.
“If parents or guardians place their children in precarious situations and expose them to homelessness when they have the means to offer suitable alternative accommodation, using their children’s vulnerability as a defence against lawful eviction from private property undermines the purpose of Section 28, which is designed to safeguard the best interests of children,” Mathenjwa said.
The court also rejected the mother’s claim that she had been unaware of the eviction proceedings.
Mathenjwa noted that eviction notices had been issued by the court and that an eviction order was eventually granted, with 60 days’ notice given before its execution. The order was subsequently served on the occupiers by the sheriff at least two months before the scheduled eviction.
“Since the Sheriff’s return indicates that he served and explained the nature of the court processes to the occupiers, it is incumbent upon the applicant to provide evidence to support her claim that she was unaware of these court processes having been served on the occupiers of the property,” the judge said.
The court further found that the mother had provided no information about the elderly person she claimed was also living at the property.
Mathenjwa also rejected her argument that the eviction had been abrupt, finding that she had been consistently informed about the legal proceedings relating to the eviction.
“Consequently, the applicant’s application should be dismissed with costs on scale B,” Mathenjwa ordered.
nomonde.zondi@iol.co.za