Couple quits Connie Ferguson’s mansion amid R550k rental row

A heavily pregnant Trisarnia Maharaj pleaded for more time to move out of actress and businesswoman Connie Ferguson’s Ruimsig property, telling a court that she was more than 36 weeks pregnant, had three minor children and had not secured suitable alternative accommodation.

But the request for an extension was refused, according to an answering affidavit filed on October 28 in which Maharaj and her husband Vikar detail their version of the bitter dispute with Ferguson.

The couple has since vacated the property and handed over the keys but is challenging the R549,302 that Ferguson’s company claims is outstanding in occupational rental and municipal charges.

Their affidavit acknowledges the agreement to purchase the property and the R65,000 monthly occupational rental arrangement. However, they dispute the calculation of the outstanding amount, saying it includes municipal charges that have not been properly reconciled.

The affidavit reveals the circumstances surrounding their request for more time to leave the property after the original July 31 deadline.

Trisarnia says her husband requested a further extension on July 30 because of her advanced pregnancy and the family’s difficulty securing other accommodation.

She says the request was refused.

The refusal to sign disputed additional terms does not amount to a denial of liability

—  Vikar and Trisarnia Maharaj

The couple says they understood that Ferguson’s company required them to hand over vacant possession by July 31, despite the written undertaking prepared during negotiations not having been signed. They argue that the proposed undertaking contained additional obligations and disputed amounts that went beyond what had been discussed between the parties.

“The refusal to sign disputed additional terms does not amount to a denial of liability.”

The dispute stems from an agreement of sale concluded in October 2025, in which the Maharajs were permitted to occupy the property from December that year while paying occupational rental of R65,000 a month, excluding municipal charges.

Ferguson’s company, Connie Ferguson Trading Enterprise, launched eviction proceedings on August 31, alleging the couple had fallen into arrears, failed to honour their commitments and remained on the property after the sale agreement was cancelled.

In her founding affidavit, Ferguson put the outstanding balance at R549,302, comprising occupational rental, water, electricity, effluent removal and other related charges.

The couple argue that the balance cannot be accepted without a proper reconciliation of the accounts.

“The admitted payments total R230,000. We dispute the correctness of the composite balance of R549,302 without a proper reconciliation of occupational charges and municipal accounts.”

The couple said their concerns included unexpectedly high water charges and discrepancies between municipal notices and the amounts attributed to them.

Trisarnia says her husband was informed by someone from Joburg Water, who had attended the property in connection with municipal services, that there appeared to be an irregular water connection.

We respectfully submit that a punitive costs order would not be justified in the circumstances and that the applicant’s request for such an order should be refused

—  Vikar and Trisarnia Maharaj

The couple say they requested the underlying meter readings, municipal statements and adjustments to establish the correct amount. They further say they had undertaken cleaning, painting and various non-structural repairs and maintenance at the property at their own expense.

The answering affidavit confirms that the couple has left the property, handing over the keys on October 27.

The Maharajs argue that their departure means the substantive eviction relief sought by Ferguson’s company is no longer necessary. They are, however, opposing the company’s request for legal costs on an attorney-and-client scale, arguing that their attempts to engage with the applicant and resolve the dispute should be considered.

“We respectfully submit that a punitive costs order would not be justified in the circumstances and that the applicant’s request for such an order should be refused.”

In her original application, Ferguson argued that the Maharajs had other accommodation available to them, saying a deeds search showed that they were registered owners of two other properties.

The Maharajs dispute the suggestion that the existence of other properties automatically meant they had immediate access to suitable accommodation. They say the practical implications of relocating with three minor children and the need for a reasonable transition period should be considered.

Ferguson’s lawyer undertook to comment but had not done so at the time of publication.