A High Court application brought by two sisters against the City of Cape Town and the Deeds Office in a bid to stop their nephew and his wife from buying or leasing a council house in Manenberg has been dismissed with costs.
Judge Judith Cloete made the ruling on Monday.
Anna Booysen moved out of the property in 2000 but returned in 2007, while Verronica Booysen never lived there.
The City said it had leased the property to a third sister since 1984.
The third sister passed away in 2017, and their nephew Anthony Booysen, who was still a backyard dweller at the time, was granted an opportunity to buy the property or have the lease extended.
But Anna and Verronica objected, claiming their mother had been the original tenant, and they “inherited” the property from her.
But Judge Cloete explained the house remained the property of the City, according to the Deeds office.
“The report of the second respondent (Registrar of Deeds) confirms that the property remains registered in the name of the City.”
The judge found that Anthony and his wife, Charmaine had lived at the property the longest, since 1999, and made a housing application to the City in 2005.
During the same period, Anna moved out due to an argument.
The Judge said the sisters had failed to make similar applications or representations as their nephew, who was employed and had two minor children.
The sisters claimed they learnt via a neighbour that the property was to be leased and sold to their nephew without their knowledge.
“It is also at this time we were told by a Mr Mayekiso that this house does not belong to us, instead belongs to the City of Cape Town and they can do whatever they want to do with their property,” the affidavit read.
“We were shocked and we informed him we knew the property belonged to us as beneficiaries of it since we were the children of our mother who had passed away.”
They approached the Department of Human Settlements and learnt that the property was leased and would be sold to Anthony and his wife.
The judge dismissed their application saying: “Accordingly, on the City’s version: neither applicant had filed a housing application in respect of the property when the third respondent’s (Anthony) application was approved; and sadly in the circumstances, the applicants have no entitlement to the property as “beneficiaries” of their late mother who passed away in 2000.“
In response to a query on the matter, the City only said: “The application from the applicants was dismissed on Monday 20 May 2024.”