[ad_1]
“The court must obtain information on the possible bias, the person’s ability, including financial resources, to obtain alternative accommodation and access to the children,” Rogers said, writing for the court.
“An eviction affects a person’s right to adequate housing and the right to property in terms of the constitution.
“The procedure in this case did not meet the basic fairness requirements.
“Such an (eviction) order may be justified, but the magistrate did not make an informed assessment.
“The effect, if any, that the provisional injunction had on the husband’s behavior up to that point was also not investigated,” Rogers said.
The attraction has had a rocky road. It was first established in December of last year before Rogers and another interim judge who disagreed with the result. It was postponed several times for different reasons and then the court asked the Cape Bar Council to appoint an attorney to represent the wife.
Judges Henney and Acting Judge Martin were then added to the panel to ensure there would be a majority ruling in the event of judicial disagreement.
The wife, in her request for a protection order last year, said that the family home was hers and that her father had bought it. However, because they were married in community of property, they were both equally owners.
She alleged that her husband abused her emotionally and verbally. You obtained an ex parte interim injunction (without notification to the other party) with a return date. Although he also requested an eviction order at the time, it was not granted.
