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 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.
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.
After the funeral, the family decided to rent out the house until an executor was appointed on Craythorne's estate.
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Sean Craythorne, Craythorne's brother, sent Van Eeden a message asking for a list of items which were given to her by the deceased as a gift because they were clearing the house and planned to give away 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.
She responded in an email addressed to another sibling, Ryan Craythorne, informing him that it was not possible to itemise everything at that point.
She went on further to voice her unhappiness about the fact that she co-operated with the family and had handed over the deceased’s cellphone, laptop and her set of the property keys and now she was told the house will be rented out.
"I will be in a position to arrange the removal of my possessions and will, of course, be available to provide any assistance you need regarding the house. As his life partner and the only related person, other than your mom, who lives in the immediate area, I am best positioned to take care of the house (and his cat) until the executor decides what needs to happen to it next. Please ensure that my housekeys are returned to me before your party leaves South Africa at the end of December 2024," she replied.
After a long back and forth and engaging assistance of a lawyer, Van Eeden was unable to get the house keys, and the new pass code to the security system that was installed. She brought an urgent application in the high court.
Among other things, she demanded that the Craythorne family return the cars belonging to the deceased, not to interfere with her occupation of the property, not to enter the property, provide her with a copy of the divorce order recording the dissolution of the marriage between the deceased and Malinda Botha, and provide her with the passcodes and passwords of the new security system.
She further argued that her long-standing relationship with Craythorne gave her the right to reside at the house with her children after her current lease expired.
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
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. There is thus no occupation of the property to be restored because of the fact that the applicant was not in occupation in the first place. 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.
"She must have known that the first respondent’s (Craythorne's mother) opposition would invariably require consultation by the first respondent’s legal team with the family of the deceased that lives outside the country. That the first respondent was able to present her opposition within the truncated timeframes that she was given could only have been made possible by the involvement of more than one counsel to prepare her opposition," said the judge.
That being the case, 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.
sinenhlanhla.masilela@iol.co.za
IOL
Get your news on the go, click here to join the IOL News WhatsApp channel.
Related Topics: