Business Maverick

Business Maverick, South Africa, Personal finance

Stellenbosch renter exploits legal system: A cautionary tale for landlords in South Africa

8 May 2025

The Western Cape Division of the High Court and the Stellenbosch Regional Court have ordered a wayward Stellenbosch tenant to pay overdue rent to the value of almost R1-million to two landlords. Although his possessions were to be auctioned to pay off the debt, the landlords have yet to see the money owed to them.

South Africa’s rental housing landscape is at a crossroads. The country’s legal framework — anchored by the Rental Housing Act — was crafted to shield vulnerable tenants from exploitation and arbitrary eviction, a constitutional imperative in a society still grappling with deep inequalities. Yet, as property owners in Stellenbosch and beyond are discovering, the pendulum may have swung too far, exposing landlords to a new set of risks.

The rent-avoidance kingpin

The case of Kevin Brown has become a cautionary tale in Stellenbosch following several rulings in the Stellenbosch Regional Court and the Western Cape Division of the High Court. Brown has reportedly exploited legal loopholes, moving from house to house, making only minimal rental payments and staying months and, in at least one case, several years without much consequence.

A tenant from hell

Pieter Wessels, one of four trustees of the PD Wessels Trust, which owns a Stellenbosch property, told Daily Maverick of the harrowing experience which saw his family home commandeered by Brown, far beyond the parameters of the agreed short-term lease.

Brown initially responded to a Property24 listing for a six-week rental (19 July 2024 to 31 August 2024). Brown was unable to pay the full rent (R50,000 a month) up front and was only able to move in on 20 July once he had made payment.

Since he only occupied the property for 13 days in July, his rent for that month was prorated to R20,967.

Brown moved in with his four children after the rent was paid — albeit by a third party, which Wessels later clocked as an “early red flag”.

Brown later sought to extend the lease until November. Wessels agreed — but only if Brown paid R150,000 up front by August 2024 to cover September, October, and November. He didn’t pay, so the lease ended on 31 August. Despite this, Brown continued to occupy the property without permission.

Wessels stated that Brown used the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) to delay eviction proceedings, a tactic Wessels claims Brown has employed with other landlords.

“Kevin managed to stay in our property for seven-and-a-half months, paying for only two months,” Wessels said, detailing a financial haemorrhage compounded by cancelled bookings and court costs.

The court found Brown had been unlawfully occupying the property, and ordered that he be evicted with effect from 28 February 2025. In the interim period between November and 28 February, the landlords (Wessels and other trustees) were ordered to return the Wi-Fi router and other items that they had removed from the property. The items, which had been included as part of the rental lease, had been confiscated by Wessels in frustration after Brown defaulted on rent payments. Brown was ordered to immediately pay R50,000 in rent once this was done.

Brown was also ordered to cover 50% of the applicants’ legal costs, rising to 100% if he breached the order.

According to South African law, landlords cannot simply change locks or forcibly remove tenants; any eviction must go through a formal process, with proper notice and, if necessary, tribunal or court intervention. This process, while vital for protecting the truly vulnerable, can be weaponised by bad-faith actors, leaving landlords with mounting losses and little immediate recourse.

However, this case was far from isolated.

“I wasn’t the first one to get caught by Kevin,” Wessels emphasised, a claim corroborated by Daily Maverick’s investigation.

“Man about town” façade

Contact with Brown’s previous landlord reveals a recurring pattern of occupation and legal evasion.

Linda Schaefer, the owner of another Stellenbosch property Brown occupied shortly before moving to Wessels’ property, described a four-year ordeal marked by similar tactics.

Schaefer rented her property to Brown from 2020 to 2024 for R40,000 a month, during which he paid on time just nine times in 44 months.

“Most payments were late — a week, a month, even six weeks,” she told Daily Maverick. She took legal action against him three times, which eventually culminated in a 2024 eviction.

She described Brown’s modus operandi: leveraging delays in court processes while maintaining a façade of affluence.

“If you see him walking down the street in Stellenbosch Central… very well dressed in expensive label brand clothing, and he’s the man about town,” Schaefer said.

She said that when she confronted him, Brown dismissed her concerns, saying: “What’s your problem? You live in a house worth millions and drive a fancy car; why are you crying that I don’t pay rent?”

However, the financial fallout extended well beyond unpaid rent. As months of late or missed payments accumulated, another crisis quietly mounted: municipal service bills.

Despite lease agreements making Brown responsible for utilities, the municipality couldn’t transfer the account into the tenant’s name because the property belonged to Schaefer. This meant that when Brown failed to pay for water, electricity, and rates, the arrears accrued in Shaefer’s name.

“My good credit record was on the line, so I had to go see the municipality’s legal department,” she told Daily Maverick.

Desperate to force Brown’s hand, she eventually stopped paying municipal bills altogether. Her hope was that by blocking the property’s electricity meter — preventing Brown from buying prepaid power — he would be compelled to settle the outstanding amounts.

Yet, even these extreme measures failed to yield results. Disappointed in the system, Schaefer complained that “the law is not on the side of property owners”.

According to Schaefer, Brown was recommended by the Anna Basson rental agency in Stellenbosch, and she expressed disappointment with the company for failing to conduct a proper background check.

Deon Carstens, the managing director at Anna Basson Properties, said they conducted a Tenant Profile Network (TPN) credit check, and Brown’s father had signed a suretyship (a guarantee where one party takes on the debt or obligations of another if they default) for the 2020 to 2021 lease.

“Self-employment carries risk, but we mitigated this with a guarantor (Brown’s father),” said Carstens. Brown’s employment details are unconfirmed — court documents list him as a business owner/landscaper.

The suretyship covered defaults during the lease term, though Carstens acknowledged Brown’s father only stepped in “on one or two occasions”. Management of the lease was later transferred to Schaefer at her request.

Carstens added that he was unaware of Brown’s history pre-lease, but noted “social media posts” about the case.

Brown’s rebuttal

In response to Daily Maverick queries, Brown said he was offered a rental for the PD Wessels’ trust property until 30 November, with emails confirming the arrangement.

Brown attributes the conflict, besides the non-payment of rent, to Wessels’ removal of items listed in the Property24 advert — including furniture, Wi-Fi routers, and pool equipment — which he says breached a court order requiring their return before Brown paid the outstanding rent.

“His lawyers’ fees are self-inflicted,” Brown said, adding that he reported Wessels’ attorneys to the Legal Practice Council for “improper conduct”.

“The bottom line is (Wessels) was just being greedy as he refused to simply let me pay a monthly rental… his implication that I was trying to take advantage of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act is completely unfounded,” Brown said.

System manipulation

While Brown maintains his innocence, his version directly conflicts with multiple accounts from landlords and personal associates. Sarah Schneider, Brown’s ex-wife of 16 years, told Daily Maverick she witnessed Brown repeatedly fail to pay rent, as well as their children’s school fees.

She described patterns of abusive behaviour that, according to her, were consistent with the disputes Brown had with landlords, including unpaid financial obligations, disregard for court orders and withholding her belongings after taking them without permission.

Landlords’ frustration mounts

Brown exemplifies the concerns raised by Wessels and Schaefer about the imbalance between tenant and landlord rights. Property owners argue that the current system, while well intentioned, is out of step with on-the-ground realities.

They face:

- Lengthy delays in regaining possession of their properties.
- Legal costs that often outweigh the arrears owed.
- Difficulty screening tenants due to privacy protections and limited access to reliable rental histories.

What this means for you

For landlords, the case is a stark reminder that tenant screening should be less “trust fall” and more “CSI: credit check”. Verify financial stability as if your property depends on it (because it does), and draft lease agreements tighter than a Stellenbosch wine cork. Otherwise, South Africa’s tenant protections might just turn your guest suite into a semi-permanent Airbnb — minus the five-star reviews.

For tenants, the message is clear: the law is your safety net, not a trampoline. Bouncing on its goodwill risks turning your landlord into a reluctant long-term roommate. Play fair, pay promptly, and remember: the best tenant-landlord relationships end with keys returned, rather than court orders.

Guidance for landlords and tenants

Against this backdrop, the Western Cape Department of Infrastructure’s responses to questions posed to the Rental Housing Tribunal offer critical guidance for landlords and tenants navigating South Africa’s fraught rental market:

Prevention: Landlords are urged to use rental screening agencies such as the TPN to verify a tenant’s rental history, payment behaviour, and references before signing a lease. Comprehensive screening helps identify red flags — such as fraudulent references or payment defaults — and acts as a frontline defence against scams.

PIE Act: The tribunal combats systemic misuse of the Rental Housing Act through proactive enforcement of court rulings, targeted education campaigns, and a streamlined complaints system. “Unfair practices” — including unlawful evictions, illegal lockouts, and utility disconnections — are strictly defined and enforced to protect both landlords and legitimate tenants.

Dispute resolution: Mediation remains central to the tribunal’s process, with cases resolved through hearings or virtual sessions after investigations. Where mediation fails, rulings are issued and enforced as court orders, providing a legally binding resolution pathway without prohibitive costs.

Balancing rights: The Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 underpins the tribunal’s mandate to balance landlord and tenant rights, ensuring fair access to housing while safeguarding income streams. Services are free, accessible, and designed to resolve most disputes within 90 days — a critical safeguard in a market increasingly strained by fraud and legal exploitation. DM

Categories:

Tags:

DM is much better if you are signed in...