A widow who wanted to have her unemployed stepson evicted from his late father’s home as she wanted to move in was told by a judge to show Ubuntu and to try and resolve her issues with him.
The widow, only identified as Mrs M, turned to the Pietermaritzburg high court to appeal an earlier order which turned down her application to have her stepson evicted from the property.
The magistrate who delivered the first judgment said she should follow the spirit of Ubuntu, and the high court now agreed with that and turned down her appeal.
It was found that the widow had no pressing need to move onto the property as she already had a place to stay. The stepson said he cannot see why they cannot live in peace on the same property, as it is large and another dwelling could be easily erected for him to stay in.
The court was told that he has been living on the property for his entire life, while the widow never lived there - either before or after her husband’s death.
The widow is appointed as the representative of the estate of her late husband. The stepson is the son of the late husband and his first wife, who died in 1997.
The deceased married his present widow in 1999, and he passed away in 2010. They argued that the deed of grant confirms that ownership of the property vested, and still vests, with the deceased, who died without leaving a will. She, as his wife, thus has ownership of the property.
The deceased inherited the entire estate, which included the property and house, when his first wife died as they were married in community of property. Their son was thus not a beneficiary of his late mother’s estate.
The deceased subsequently entered his marriage to the appellant (his second wife) with full title to the property. The deceased and the appellant were married by customary law and registered the marriage with home affairs.
The marriage is one in community of property, and the appellant would lawfully be entitled to inherit a 100% share of the property from the deceased estate.
The widow testified that there was conflict between her and her stepson at the time of the deceased’s death. She did try to resolve the issues and requested him to vacate the property as she needed a place to stay.
He refused to vacate the property and chased the appellant off the property. The court noted that it was clear that the widow did not consent to the stepson residing on the property and that she did have a right to evict him.
In terms of the law, the lower court earlier found the stepson to be an unlawful occupier of his father’s land, and this was endorsed by the high court on appeal. But the court said the issue is whether it is just and equitable to evict the unlawful occupier.
The court considered the fact that the stepson has occupied the property for most of his life and would be rendered homeless if he was to move. The appellant had not resided on the property for a few years prior to the deceased’s death nor after the death of the deceased.
The court said the principles of Ubuntu, which encompass the values of “humanity to others,” should be applied here in arriving at a just and equitable decision. The property is approximately 400 square meters in size.
The surface area of the property is big enough to accommodate a second structure to be the dwelling of the stepson, the court said. It said the parties need to engage in mediation and reach a solution to live peacefully with each other.
WhatsApp your views on this story at 071 485 7995.
Pretoria News