Pretoria - The Constitutional Court had the last word on the fate of a granny, 85, who has had eviction proceedings hanging over her head for more than a decade.
She must finally move as the owner of the property had made a generous offer by providing her with a comfortable home nearby.
While the woman and her disabled son had over the years received relief from the courts allowing them to continue to stay in the house which she had occupied since she was 11, the apex court has now ruled in favour of the homeowner.
Phillips has resided in the Somerset West house on the property since 1947. She lived on the property with her parents.
But things changed in 2007 when Willem Grobler bought the portion on which Phillips and her disabled son, Adam, live.
His dream was for his elderly parents to move to the property, but Phillips refused to budge. She also refused to accept any of his proposals over the years to have her move to an alternate property nearby.
Phillips maintained that she enjoyed an oral right of life-long habitation granted by a previous owner.
It was a see-saw legal ride for the gogo over the years, as the magistrate’s court at first ordered her eviction. But Phillips successfully appealed the order before three judges in the Western Cape High Court.
Grobler in turn appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, which also ruled in the granny’s favour. An aggrieved Grobler then turned to the highest court in the country – and at last won his battle.
In a unanimous judgment this week, the Concourt judges took into account that Grobler did not merely want to kick Phillips out of the house, but that he had in fact offered alternative accommodation.
They said that if this offer were to be accepted, Phillips would continue to enjoy having a decent home. While the offer was generous, it should not be construed as setting a precedent on what other private landowners are obliged to do in similar circumstances. There was no obligation on a private landowner to provide alternative accommodation to an unlawful occupier, the judges said.
The apex court said the question whether the constitutional rights of the unlawful occupier were affected by the eviction was one of the relevant considerations, but the wishes or personal preferences of the unlawful occupier were not.
“An unlawful occupier such as Mrs Phillips does not have a right to refuse to be evicted on the basis that she prefers or wishes to remain in the property that she is occupying unlawfully.
“In terms of Section 26 of the Constitution, everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing. The Constitution does not give Mrs Phillips the right to choose exactly where in Somerset West she wants to live,” the court said.
The court added that when dealing with considerations of justice and equity, the capacity of a landowner to provide alternative accommodation and the peculiar circumstances of an evictee were relevant.
But the fact that Grobler had repeatedly made offers of alternative accommodation to Phillips should not be taken as creating any obligation on him to offer alternative accommodation.
The court said Grobler had to endure Phillips’ unlawful occupation on his property for 14 years. “It is an important consideration that an eviction order in these circumstances will not render Mrs Phillips homeless,” the court said.
Pretoria News