The High Court in the Western Cape has ruled against a woman who wanted to live in her late boyfriend's house with her children and also have access to his cars.
Image: File
The Western Cape High Court has ruled against a woman who wanted to live in her late boyfriend's house with her children and also have access to his cars.
Ruansa van Eeden brought an urgent application in the high court after the family of her late boyfriend, Wilfred Heathcoate Craythorne, refused to hand her back the keys of his house.
Craythorne passed away in November 2024 and the two were living in separate homes, but Van Eeden had two house keys to her boyfriend's house.
She gave away the keys during his funeral to allow his family to stay in the house during the duration of the funeral as they lived overseas. However, Craythorne's mother, Aletha Catherina Oosthuizen, who was the first respondent in the case, lives in Cape Town.
Sean Craythorne, brother of the deceased, messaged Van Eeden requesting a list of items given to her as gifts, as they were clearing the house to donate some items to charity.
"The house will possibly be rented while the executors are working on sorting out the estate, therefore, the need to expedite the process. Do you know who the stuffed toy bunny upstairs belongs to? Also do you have a black coat here? Can you please let us know before Friday. Thank you,'' read the message.
In her reply to another sibling, Ryan Craythorne, Van Eeden expressed her frustration about being asked to itemise everything at that moment. She noted her cooperation with the family, having already handed over the deceased’s cellphone, laptop, and keys, and was unhappy to learn that the house would be rented out.
She demanded that the Craythorne family return the deceased's cars, refrain from interfering with her occupation of the property, not enter the property, provide a copy of the divorce order between the deceased and Malinda Botha, and give her the passcodes and passwords for the new security system.
She argued that her long-standing relationship with Craythorne entitled her to reside in the house with her children after her current lease expired.
However, Judge Lister Gcinikhaya Nuku found that her claim lacked critical support, noting that she did not occupy the property at the time of Craythorne's passing which was an essential element in establishing her rights.
Judge Nuku further added that her arguments did not substantiate a case of spoliation — a court order to restore someone's possession of property if they have been unlawfully deprived of it, such as a landlord changing locks or cutting off utilities without a court order.
"Spoliation remedy is not designed to protect access. The applicant (Van Eeden) presented no evidence that she had been in occupation of the property when she gave the property keys to Ryan. That must put an end to any claim for spoliation on the basis of the applicant’s failure to establish peaceful and undisturbed possession," said the judge.
Moreover, Judge Nuku said Van Eeden brought the matter on an urgent basis, giving the respondents not much time to respond. It was held that she should have known that Craythorne's mother, who appears to be her main adversary, had no knowledge regarding most allegations mentioned by Van Eeden in her affidavit.
Judge Nuku said Craythorne's mother was entitled to costs as she had to use help from more than one attorney due to the short notice of the application.
The application was dismissed and Van Eeden was ordered to pay the costs of attorney's hired by Craythorne's mother.
Cape Argus