Tembela Ntloko lost an urgent High Court bid in Cape Town to immediately enforce an order requiring her late partner’s parents to return furniture and household items removed from the home she shared with him, according to court records from a judgment handed down by Judge Dumisani Lekhuleni.
The legal battle stems from a dispute following the death of Ntloko’s partner in May 2026. Ntloko and the deceased had lived together as partners in Parklands North, Cape Town, and had jointly purchased a sectional title unit in August 2025. Among the belongings taken away were a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, toaster, kettle, television stand, television, camp chair, iron, a headboard, and two beds.
Did You Know? A refrigerator, washing machine, microwave, kettle, toaster, television, television stand, camp chair, iron, two beds, and a headboard were part of the movable property contested and removed from the Parklands North residence.
Legal Proceedings and the Magistrate Court Spoliation Order
Following the removal of the items, Ntloko pursued multiple legal avenues. She approached the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court and secured a final spoliation order on July 16, 2026. A spoliation order acts as an expedited judicial remedy designed to compel the immediate restoration of assets seized outside of lawful channels. She also opened a criminal case of housebreaking against the family and separately sought a High Court order declaring she had been married by customary union, though that application was dismissed because she cited the “Kewuti family” rather than a natural or juristic person as the respondent.
When Ntloko instructed the Sheriff to enforce the spoliation order, the respondents filed a notice of appeal on July 20, 2026, which halted the Sheriff from executing it. Ntloko’s attorneys argued that noting an appeal did not suspend a spoliation order and gave the respondents until the close of business on July 22 to return the property. When they failed to comply, Ntloko filed her urgent High Court application, stating through her counsel that she had been left without a bed, refrigerator, and other essential goods, forcing her to stay with her parents.
High Court Dismissal and Section 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act
In the High Court, the respondents disputed the urgency of the application and argued that Ntloko had delayed bringing the matter forward. They also maintained that the deceased was the sole owner of the movable property, that his will granted them authority over the residue of the estate, and that Ntloko and the deceased had separated in March 2026 before his death. Judge Lekhuleni found that because there was no underlying dispute before the magistrate regarding Ntloko’s entitlement to possession, the magistrate had simply restored the status quo, making the order final in effect and subject to suspension upon appeal.
The High Court ruled that Ntloko should have instead approached the magistrate’s court under section 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. Section 78 permits a magistrate’s court to direct that a judgment be carried into execution or suspended pending an appeal, subject to appropriate conditions. Because Ntloko did not follow this route, the High Court concluded that the appeal had suspended the spoliation order and dismissed the application, ordering each party to pay its own costs.
Court Criticism of Unlawful Asset Retention
Despite dismissing the application, Judge Lekhuleni criticized the respondents for retaining the assets. The court noted that Faniswa Nkati and Mpho Nkati remained in possession of items the magistrate had found they took unlawfully. Judge Lekhuleni stated that the respondents continued to benefit from their unlawful conduct, describing such actions as fundamentally inconsistent with constitutional values. However, because the narrow legal issue before the High Court was whether the appeal suspended the magistrate’s order, the court could not authorize execution without a proper section 78 application.
What legal action did Tembela Ntloko initially take regarding the removed items? Ntloko approached the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court and obtained a final spoliation order on July 16, 2026, which commanded the return of the property taken without legal process.
Why did the High Court dismiss Ntloko’s urgent application? The High Court found that the respondents’ notice of appeal effectively suspended the magistrate’s spoliation order, and Ntloko should have utilized section 78 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act to seek execution despite the pending appeal.
What specific items were removed from the property? Taken from the premises were a washing machine, refrigerator, microwave, toaster, kettle, television, television stand, camp chair, iron, a headboard, and two beds.
Keep reading