Actress’s eviction battle with tenants deepens over ‘R550,000 debt’

Share current article via EmailShare current article via FacebookShare current article via TwitterShare current article via LinkedInMduduzi NonyaneOpens in new windowOpens in new windowEnter fullscreen mode displaying this image.ExpandConnie Ferguson’s bid to evict a couple from her Ruimsig property has escalated, with the Maharajs formally opposing the application. Picture: Oupa Bopape Story audio is generated using AI

Seasoned actress and businesswoman Connie Ferguson has gone to court to evict tenants from her Ruimsig, Johannesburg, property, accusing them of failing to settle almost R550,000 in rent and related property charges.

Ferguson, through her company Connie Ferguson Trading Enterprise, approached the Johannesburg high court for an eviction order in August, alleging that married couple Vikar and Trisarnia Maharaj remained on the property after the cancellation of an agreement to purchase it, and failed to honour commitments to settle the outstanding amounts.

In her founding affidavit, Ferguson puts the alleged outstanding balance at R549,302, comprising occupational rental, municipal utilities, effluent and related charges.

The Maharaj couple has now opposed the eviction application. However, their notice of intention to oppose, filed on October 7, does not set out the grounds of their defence.

According to Ferguson, the dispute began with a R65,000-a-month occupational rental arrangement after the couple entered into an agreement to buy the property.

Her company, Connie Ferguson Trading Enterprise , is the registered owner of 426 Stallion Road, Ruimsig Township. A property24.com listing reflects that the property was last purchased in 2017 for R6.8m.

Ferguson says the sale agreement to the Maharajs was concluded on October 28 2025, with the couple taking occupation on December 1 that year.

But within months, the Maharajs fell into arrears with their occupational rental, according to Ferguson’s affidavit.

She says her company subsequently issued a formal notice of breach of agreement on April 1.

But rather than immediately seeking their eviction, Ferguson says she and her representatives continued engaging with the couple.

A meeting took place on May 14, convened at the behest of Vikar and Trisarnia.

Ferguson claims that at this meeting the couple acknowledged they were in breach and alleged that this was due to fraudulent conduct on the part of their accountant.

Ferguson says proof of the alleged fraud was one of the conditions attached to the further indulgence granted to them.

The couple allegedly asked to remain in the property while they attempted to secure a new agreement of sale and bond approval.

Ferguson says they asked to have until July 31 to “regularise” their position and remedy the arrears owing.

They possess the independent financial means to secure immediate alternative housing, without rendering them homeless or dependent on state resources.

Her company agreed, on the condition that the couple settle all arrears, maintain their ongoing occupational rental, provide financial documentation, provide proof of the alleged accountant fraud, secure bond approval for a new sale agreement by July 31 and vacate the property if they failed to comply.

She says her attorneys subsequently prepared an undertaking and amended it to accommodate requests made by the couple but, she claims, they never signed it.

She says the Maharajs made a R100,000 payment on May 19 and a R65,000 payment on June 2, totalling R165,000.

However this, along with the R65,000 the couple paid before taking occupation on December 1 2025, was nowhere near enough to resolve the outstanding account.

By August, Ferguson’s company had resolved to take the matter to court.

Ferguson states that her company is suffering ongoing financial prejudice because it cannot freely use or sell the property while the Maharajs remain there.

Ferguson says a deed search indicates that the Maharajs are the registered owners of two other properties.

“They possess the independent financial means to secure immediate alternative housing, without rendering them homeless or dependent on state resources,” she says.

Ferguson’s lawyer, who identified himself only as Mr Malope, this week said that she was not involved in the rental agreement process and referred questions to estate agent Dean Mtshali, who declined to comment.

Calls to the registered cell phone numbers of Vikar and Trisarnia Maharaj were not answered. They also did not respond to detailed questions on WhatsApp to them. The landline number for Vikar’s listed business was disconnected. The Sunday Times also went to the house to speak to the couple. A security guard at the gated community said he did not know the couple. Access was restricted to visitors with a code supplied only through the resident.

Would you like to comment on this article?Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.