August 27, 08:00IOL

Cape Town woman challenges removal of furniture by deceased partner's family

A woman from Cape Town faced a legal dispute regarding an order for property restitution against the parents of her deceased partner. She was unable to secure immediate enforcement in the High Court of the order compelling the parents to return furniture and other household items they took from the home she shared with him.

Judge Dumisani Lehuleni ruled on the application filed by Thembelo Ntloko against Phaniswa Keuti Nkati and Mpho Nkati. The dispute arose after the death of Thembelo Ntloko's partner in May, following which his parents removed several movable items from the couple's home in Parklands North, including a refrigerator, washing machine, microwave oven, kettle, toaster, television, beds, and other furniture.

The magistrate initially granted Ntloko a final order for property restitution. Such an order is a swift judicial directive that compels someone to return property taken without proper legal procedure. However, in Ntloko's case, this order was stayed after the Nkati family appealed the magistrate's decision.

Dispute arose after partner's death

Ntloko and the deceased lived together as partners in Parklands North, Cape Town. They jointly purchased an apartment in August 2025. The man passed away in May 2026, leaving a will naming his mother, Phaniswa Nkati, as the executor of his estate.

After his death, she reported that his family arrived on her property without a court order and took the refrigerator, washing machine, microwave oven, kettle, toaster, television, TV stand, folding chair, iron, two beds, and headboards. She approached the High Court requesting an order confirming that she was in a common-law marriage with him. This application was dismissed because she named 'Keuti's family' as the defendant, rather than a natural or legal person.

She also initiated a criminal case for trespassing against them. Ntloko insisted that although she knew her partner's will would allow his mother to take the furniture, she argued that his family could not take matters into their own hands without following due legal procedure. She also stated that she was unaware of any executor certificates being issued at that time.

Property restitution order issued

Ntloko applied to the Cape Town Magistrate's Court for property restitution, which was granted on July 16. Ntloko then instructed the Sheriff to enforce this order. However, on July 20, the defendants filed a notice of appeal against the magistrate's ruling, preventing the Sheriff from executing the order.

Ntloko's lawyers then wrote to the defendants, arguing that merely lodging an appeal does not suspend a property restitution order. They gave them until the end of the business day on July 22 to restore possession of the movable property. When the defendants failed to comply, Ntloko filed an urgent application in the High Court.

Arguments in the High Court

Ntloko argued that the matter was urgent because she had been deprived of essential household items. Her lawyer informed the court that she was left without a bed, refrigerator, and other necessary furniture and was forced to leave her home and stay with her parents. The man's family contested the urgency of the application, claiming that Ntloko delayed approaching the court after learning about their notice of appeal. They also insisted that the deceased was the sole owner of the movable property and that his will gave them authority over the remainder of his estate. Furthermore, they disputed Ntloko's claim that she was married to the deceased, stating that the couple had separated before his death. According to their version, Ntloko left their shared home in March 2026 and only returned after the deceased's funeral.

Ntloko should have approached the magistrate's court

The High Court found that there was no substantive dispute before the magistrate regarding Ntloko's right to possess the movable property at the time she filed for restitution. The magistrate merely restored the previous status quo after determining that Ntloko had been unlawfully deprived of possession. For this reason, the order was considered final in substance and was stayed after the defendants lodged the appeal. Judge Lehuleni stated that Ntloko should have approached the magistrate's court under Section 78 of the Magistrates' Courts Act to request an order authorizing the execution of the property restitution order despite the pending appeal. Section 78 allows the magistrate's court, after an appeal is lodged, to order that the decision be executed or that its execution be suspended until the appeal is concluded, subject to any conditions, including security, deemed appropriate by the court. Thus, the High Court concluded that the defendants' notice of appeal did indeed stay the property restitution order.

Court criticizes continued possession of property

Despite dismissing the application, the decision did not ignore the circumstances that led to the dispute. Lehuleni noted that the defendants continued to possess assets that, in the magistrate's view, they had illegally taken from Ntloko. The judge stated that the defendants were continuing to benefit from their illegal conduct and characterized such behavior as fundamentally incompatible with constitutional values. However, since the legal question before the High Court concerned whether an appeal suspends a magistrate's order, the court could not simply grant execution of the order without a proper application under Section 78. Ultimately, the High Court dismissed Ntloko's application and ordered that each party pay its own costs.

Similar stories

iol.co.zaAugust 17, 21:00

Cape Town faces legal battles over construction contracts

The City of Cape Town found itself in a situation of mixed results in court: it won one case brought by a construction company but lost another in the High Court of Cape Town.

In a recent ruling, temporary judge Veronica Bartus ordered the City to pay Baseline Civil Contractors the sum of 11 million rand, and also obliged the municipality to participate in a cost adjustment after arbitrator Dennis Ninkonde amended the arbitration award made in May 2025.

Baseline Civils sought the court to enforce the amended arbitration award, subsequent determination of the CPA, and payment for materials on site. However, the City filed a counterclaim demanding that the arbitration award and the CPA determination be declared invalid and set aside.

This dispute arose from disagreements regarding the valuation of work performed by Baseline after the termination of a construction contract concluded in June 2024, which was signed in November 2019.

Initially, Ninkonde issued an arbitration award granting Baseline 5.1 million rand because the company failed to provide the necessary documents for the valuation of the work. Nevertheless, it turned out that Baseline submitted its materials in April 2025, but the arbitrator 'missed the email from April 8, 2025.'

Subsequently, Ninkonde issued an amended arbitration award within the stipulated seven-day period, awarding Baseline 11,549,644.10 rand and instructing the parties to determine the additional CPA amount. Although the City paid the amount stipulated in the initial award, it lodged a notice of disagreement and did not participate in the CPA process, arguing that the arbitrator had fulfilled their duties.

Bartus noted that the amended arbitration award remained within the scope of the mandate, namely the valuation of the work performed. She emphasized: 'The arbitrator did not rule on a new dispute, and there are no allegations of fraud, collusion, caprice, or manifest unfairness, because there are none.'

The judge also stated that the amended award created a clear obligation for the parties to engage with the CPA calculation. 'The City's refusal to participate does not annul the arbitrator's jurisdiction, but it means that the CPA determination was made under circumstances where one of the parties did not present its position. In the interest of fairness and to ensure that the CPA amount is determined on a proper evidentiary basis, I believe that the CPA issue should be referred back to arbitration for reconsideration,' she said.

In her decision, Bartus upheld the amended arbitration award as valid and enforceable, and ordered the City to participate in the CPA process. She directed: 'The arbitrator shall determine the CPA amount after receiving submissions from both parties, or upon expiration of the submission deadline if either party fails to submit submissions,' adding a requirement for the City to pay Baseline's costs.

In a separate case, the High Court of Cape Town dismissed a lawsuit filed against the City by World Focus Constructions. World Focus entered into a contract on June 12, 2023, for emergency repair and maintenance of water infrastructure from July 1, 2023, to June 30, 2026.

However, the City placed a new tender in May of this year, and World Focus failed to win. After losing an internal appeal, the City and World Focus agreed on an addendum extending the contract on a monthly basis until December 31 or until the new contract came into effect.

Later, World Focus learned in June that its contract would end in July, and the new contract would start on August 1. The company sued, demanding the continuation of its contract and a review of the City's decisions regarding the awarding of the new tender to the winners.

Temporary Judge Don Norton stated that World Focus claimed the right to continue the contract after August 1 based on having that right, but it was not provided with written notice one month in advance about the date the replacement contract would begin. Norton noted: 'The use of the term 'replacement contract' implies the City's intention not to be bound by two contracts for the same services when the contract with the third to fifth respondents comes into force.'

Norton also pointed out that this addendum did not grant World Focus the right to monthly written notice of the replacement contract's effective date. 'The applicant did not establish a clear right to monthly notice of the commencement of the replacement contract. If it had established such a right, the City's stated intention to implement the replacement contract on August 1, 2026, would have served as a basis for a reasonable apprehension of harm to that right,' she concluded and awarded punitive sanctions against World Focus.

This occurred after the court granted a final interdict protecting the MyCiTi Cape Flats route expansion projects from extortion, intimidation, and illegal interference.