Landmark ruling reinforces registered ownership rights

Source: Supplied.

Commenting on the Lancelot Properties (Pty) Ltd v Gerretsen and Others case, Jason Berkowitz, associate director at Van Deventer Dowlath & Marx Incorporated, says the ruling provides important certainty for landlords and property investors, making it clear that unproven allegations alone cannot prevent owners from recovering possession of their property..

“The Court refused to allow an occupier’s shotgun objections to override a registered owner’s right to their own property,” he explains. “It cut straight through a long list of objections from disputed liquidation, disputed sale, disputed transfer, and even claims of an ongoing criminal investigation, and in so doing, confirmed that if you hold registered title, you’re entitled to enforce it - unless and until a court has actually taken it away from you.”

What happened: The property had been bought at a liquidation auction, with the occupier - a long-standing resident with a personal connection to the previous owner - resisting the new owner’s claim on almost every ground available to her.

"From a landlord’s perspective, this is the fact pattern that keeps you up at night," says Berkowitz. "An occupier who had lived there for years, had deep-seated ties to the property, and was determined to unravel the entire chain of title. But a well-documented purchase and a properly run Protection of Illegal Eviction (PIE) process put end to her resistance."

Title rights prevail

Fraud allegations, on their own, don’t stop an eviction: For Berkowitz, the most valuable part of the judgment for landlords is the Court’s treatment of the fraud and irregularity allegations.

"The occupier alleged fraud, procedural irregularities, and referenced ongoing criminal investigations, which on paper, sounded like it should carry weight," he points out. "But the Court was clear: none of them resulted in the underlying transaction being set aside.

"Until that happens, the registered owner’s title stands - full stop. That’s a very reassuring principle for any landlord who has bought a property through a liquidation, sale in execution, or similar process and later faces an occupier trying to relitigate the transaction from the sidelines."

The Court also had to weigh whether eviction would be just and equitable, as required by PIE, he notes further - and here too, the outcome favoured the property owner.

The following common-cause facts counted decisively:

• The occupier was not elderly and had no dependents
• She owned other property from which she derived income
• She could not show that eviction would leave her homeless or without alternative accommodation.

"This is an important reminder that lengthy occupation on its own is not a trump card. Where an occupier has resources, income, and somewhere else to go, the balance tips firmly in the owner’s favour,” he emphasises. “Landlords therefore don’t need to be discouraged from pursuing eviction simply because an occupier has been on the property for decades - the real question is always whether they will actually be left without a roof over their head."

South Africa’s social housing under strain as occupation disputes escalate, Nasho warns

25 Jun 2026

“The Court declared the occupation unlawful, granted the eviction order, and authorised the Sheriff to remove the occupier if they failed to vacate in time, with costs awarded against the occupier. Possession restored, a clear enforcement mechanism for occupiers who refuse to move, and a costs order to boot is an excellent outcome for all landlords,” he says.

Attorneys managing an eviction process need to be aware of one critical point, however, Berkowitz cautions. “The Court’s written reasons and its final order did not specify the same period for vacation, which is why it’s important to always work off the order itself, not the reasoning. It’s a small thing to check, and it makes sure that you enforce exactly what the Court granted without giving anyone room to argue about it later."

The key takeaway for landlords and property investors: The message from this Court provides much-needed certainty for landlords and investors making decisions about acquisitions, liquidation purchases, and problem tenancies, Berkowitz says.

"If your title is properly registered and you follow the PIE process correctly, allegations - however dramatic they sound – aren’t enough to stop you from recovering your property. Our advice to clients is always to do the groundwork properly on the front end - the purchase, the notice, the process - and the courts will consistently back you when it counts."