Court dismisses Cape Town wife seeking R1 million to furnish temporary accommodation - IOL

Court dismisses Cape Town woman’s R1 million bid to furnish temporary accommodation.

The Western Cape High Court in Cape Town has dismissed an urgent application by a woman seeking R1 million from her estranged husband to furnish temporary accommodation while their marital home undergoes renovations.

The woman alternatively sought permission to remove furniture and household items from the matrimonial home to furnish an alternative property she had secured for four months.

However, Judge Daniel Mafaleu Thulare dismissed the application after finding that the issue of suitable alternative accommodation had already been determined in earlier court proceedings.

The woman and her husband are involved in acrimonious divorce proceedings. Their matrimonial home in Constantia, Cape Town, is owned by a trust.

She had previously been ordered to vacate the property temporarily to allow renovations and other repair work to be completed.

The woman secured alternative accommodation for the period between September 2026 and January 2027. However, the property was unfurnished.

She told the court that finding suitable furnished accommodation for the four-month period had proved difficult, particularly because the rental period coincided with Cape Town’s peak summer season.

According to the judgment, she approached several rental agencies, including Dogon, Seeff, Pam Golding, Hunt Property, Sotheby’s, Steenberg Rentals and Tyson.

The properties available were either unfurnished, did not allow pets or were not available for short-term leases.

The court heard that some furnished properties were being offered at daily holiday-rental rates, making them too expensive for the woman.

She argued that moving her existing furniture into the alternative property would be cheaper than paying storage fees. She also said she could not afford to purchase replacement furniture.

The respondents, who are the trustees that own the matrimonial home, refused to allow her to remove the household furniture, permitting her to take only her personal belongings.

The respondents argued that the woman’s claim was against her husband, rather than the trust, based on his duty to support her.

They maintained that the issue had already been addressed in earlier proceedings, during which her husband was ordered to contribute R140,000 towards suitable alternative accommodation.

The earlier order, granted by Judge Wille, required the husband to contribute R140,000 towards accommodation for the interim period between end of February and July1, 2026.

He was also required to pay reasonable deposits and necessary removal costs associated with the relocation.

The respondents argued that the contribution was intended to cover furnished accommodation because the relocation was temporary.

The husband further maintained that the earlier order was final and could not be reopened. The woman’s appeal against that order had failed.

He also told the court that he was renting furnished accommodation for R100,000 a month and contended that the furniture in the matrimonial home belonged to him rather than the trust.

In dismissing the application, judge Thulare referred to the legal principle known as the “once and for all” rule, which seeks to prevent parties from bringing repeated claims arising from the same cause of action.

The judge noted that the couple’s divorce dispute had been highly litigious and acrimonious.

Judge Thulare found that the earlier proceedings had already dealt with the question of suitable alternative accommodation and that the parties had contemplated furnished short-term accommodation.

The judge reasoned that the woman would probably have raised the issue of removing furniture when the earlier application was heard if she had intended to rely on her existing household items.

The judgment found that the removal of furniture had not formed part of the earlier dispute because the parties had not anticipated that she would secure unfurnished accommodation.

The judge rejected the woman’s attempt to rely on the wording of the earlier order to justify removing the furniture, finding that the provision was intended to assist her with her personal belongings and necessities.

The judge concluded that the question of suitable alternative accommodation, understood in the context of the earlier proceedings to mean furnished short-term accommodation, had already been finally determined.

The application was dismissed with costs.