A Cape Town High Court judge has raised serious concerns about the circumstances in which a woman’s home in Strand was sold to settle a R400,000 defamation judgment, even as the court dismissed her latest attempt to overturn the legal decisions that led to its loss.
In a recent judgment delivered, acting judge Adrian Montzinger said the papers raised questions about the damages awarded against Melisha Valencia Sauls and whether the court that authorised the sale of her property had properly considered the relevant legal safeguards.
Sauls lost her 36-square-metre sectional-title unit in Strand after it was sold in execution to Lourens Johannes Rossouw, the man who had obtained the defamation judgment against her. Rossouw bought the property for R400,000 on October 15, 2025, and it was transferred into his name on January 9, 2026.
The dispute originated in an email Sauls sent in 2019 to two fellow members of her body corporate. The email led to a defamation action, and in June 2023 the Somerset West Regional Court ordered her to pay R400,000 in damages, together with interest and legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
Sauls subsequently sought to challenge the judgment and the process through which her home was sold. However, her attempts were complicated by procedural problems, including the striking out of her defence after she failed to comply with discovery requirements. She was also in Dubai after her attorneys withdrew.
Questions over the damages and the sale
Although Montzinger dismissed Sauls’ latest application, the judge expressed concern about aspects of the underlying proceedings.
The judge said the R400,000 damages award for an email sent to two recipients appeared extraordinary. The papers before the High Court did not explain how the amount had been determined or provide the record needed to assess the basis for the award and the punitive costs order.
The judge also questioned whether the process authorising the sale of the property had adequately addressed the relevant considerations. These included whether the unit was Sauls’ primary residence, whether alternative arrangements for repayment could have been considered, whether a reserve price should have been set, and whether the sale was proportionate in the circumstances.
The property had been purchased by Sauls for R335,000 in 2017. Valuations in the papers placed its value at R570,000 according to Lightstone and R480,000 according to the municipal valuation. The property was unbonded.
The Strand Regional Court authorised execution against the property in December 2024. But the order prepared by Rossouw’s attorneys did not record that Sauls had appeared to oppose the application or set out her reasons for doing so. No reserve price was stipulated.
The judge emphasised that the law provides constitutional protections where a person’s home is at risk of being sold to satisfy a debt. Courts must independently consider the circumstances and ensure that the relevant safeguards are applied.
Montzinger stressed, however, that the High Court did not have the complete record before it and was not making final findings that the earlier proceedings were unlawful or irregular.
Bid to declare her a vexatious litigant fails
Rossouw had brought a counter-application seeking to have Sauls declared a vexatious litigant under the Vexatious Proceedings Act, arguing that she had launched repeated applications.
The judge dismissed that application too. While Montzinger acknowledged that many of Sauls’ applications had procedural defects and that some of her affidavits contained offensive material, the judge found that her central grievance had not yet been determined on its merits.
The judge concluded that the underlying dispute could not be dismissed as frivolous or obviously unsustainable. Montzinger also described a threatening passage in an application related to harassment as alarming.
Sauls’ main application was dismissed without a costs order, while Rossouw’s counter-application was dismissed with costs.
The judge said it would be unfair to add to Sauls’ indebtedness for trying to challenge the loss of her home.
It’s important to note that Judge Montzinger does not restore the property to Sauls or overturn the R400,000 defamation judgment.
What can Sauls do next?
According to the ruling, Sauls can still pursue legal action to challenge the decisions that led to the loss of her home, but she must do so through the appropriate court procedures. The High Court did not overturn the defamation judgment or restore her property.
The judge identified two main possible routes:
1. Apply to rescind the defamation judgment
Sauls can apply to the Somerset West Regional Court to have the original defamation judgment set aside.
According to the ruling, she would need to:
- Explain the delay in bringing the application and seek condonation if required.
- Show that she has a bona fide defence to the defamation claim.
- Explain why her default was not wilful, in accordance with the requirements described by the judge.
The original judgment ordered her to pay R400,000 in damages, plus interest and legal costs.
2. Appeal or review the order authorising the sale
Sauls can also seek to challenge the December 2024 order that authorised the sale of her home through an appeal or review, provided she meets the applicable procedural requirements and time limits.
The judge identified several issues that could warrant scrutiny, including whether the court properly considered:
- Whether the property was her primary residence.
- Whether she could repay the debt by another means.
- The property’s valuations and whether a reserve price should have been set.
- Whether selling the home was proportionate in the circumstances.
These were concerns raised by the judge, not final findings that the sale was unlawful.
