Actress and businesswoman Connie Ferguson has taken a property dispute to court after a couple allegedly failed to settle more than R549,000 in outstanding occupational rent and municipal charges on a luxury home in Ruimsig, west of Johannesburg.
Ferguson’s company, Connie Ferguson Trading Enterprise, has approached the Johannesburg High Court seeking an eviction order against Vikar Maharaj, his wife Trisarnia Maharaj and anyone else occupying the property.
The dispute follows the collapse of a proposed R6.5 million sale agreement that allowed the couple to move into the property before ownership was transferred.
According to court papers filed by Ferguson’s company, the amount allegedly outstanding had reached R549,302.43 by late August 2026.
Sale agreement placed couple in Ruimsig property
The dispute began with a sale agreement signed on 28 October 2025, according to Ferguson’s founding affidavit.
The agreement was for the purchase of the property for R6.5 million. The home has reportedly been valued at approximately R5.9 million.
The Maharajs took occupation on 1 December 2025 while the transfer process was expected to proceed.
Under the arrangement, they were required to pay R65,000 a month in occupational rent, together with municipal charges, utilities and other costs associated with occupying the property.
The arrangement was intended to bridge the period between occupation and the eventual transfer of ownership.
According to Ferguson’s company, however, the payments subsequently fell into arrears.
Breach notice followed unpaid amounts
Court papers state that Ferguson’s company sent the Maharajs a breach letter on 1 April 2026, giving them an opportunity to remedy the alleged default.
The company says the situation was not resolved within the required period.
The sale agreement was subsequently cancelled, and the couple were instructed to vacate the property by 6 May 2026.
Instead, discussions continued between the parties.
A meeting was held on 14 May, during which the Maharajs allegedly acknowledged the breach.
According to Ferguson’s company, the couple attributed their financial difficulties to alleged fraudulent conduct by their accountant.
That explanation is disputed by Ferguson’s company.
Couple asked for more time to remain in home
The Maharajs reportedly requested permission to remain in the property until 31 July 2026 while attempting to resolve the outstanding balance and obtain bond approval for a new offer to purchase.
Ferguson’s company agreed to the proposed arrangement and prepared a written undertaking intended to formalise the agreement.
The company alleges, however, that the Maharajs ultimately declined to sign the undertaking despite amendments being made to accommodate their position.
Despite the dispute, payments were subsequently made.
According to the court papers, the couple paid R100,000 on 19 May 2026 and another R65,000 on 2 June 2026.
A further R65,000 had reportedly been paid before they moved into the property.
Ferguson’s company maintains that these payments were insufficient to clear the alleged arrears.
Alleged debt rises to R549,302
By late August, the amount allegedly owed had grown to R549,302.43.
The figure includes unpaid occupational rent and municipal-related charges, according to Ferguson’s company.
The company argues that it continues to suffer financial losses while being unable to regain possession of the property or proceed with its intended sale.
In the founding affidavit, Ferguson’s company says it is being deprived of the use and beneficial enjoyment of the property and continues to incur costs.
The company maintains that its intention is ultimately to sell the property.
Ferguson’s company seeks eviction order
The court application asks the Johannesburg High Court to order the Maharajs and any other occupants to leave the property.
Ferguson’s company argues that an eviction order is necessary because it has no adequate alternative remedy for recovering possession.
The company also says the couple own two other properties, arguing that they would therefore not be left without alternative accommodation if evicted.
Whether those circumstances satisfy the legal requirements for an eviction order will ultimately be determined by the court.
Maharaj says couple has not been served
Vikar Maharaj has disputed the suggestion that the matter is already proceeding uncontested.
Speaking to Africa Daily, he said the couple had not yet been formally served with the court papers.
He indicated that the parties were attempting to resolve the dispute through their respective legal representatives.
“We have not been served with the papers, but we have spoken to our lawyers to speak to her attorneys to try to resolve the matter,” Maharaj said.
His response indicates that negotiations may continue even as Ferguson’s company pursues the court application.
What happens next?
The dispute now places the future of the Ruimsig property in the hands of the legal process unless the parties reach an agreement beforehand.
At the heart of the case is whether Ferguson’s company is entitled to recover possession of the property following the cancellation of the sale agreement and whether the alleged arrears justify the relief being sought.
The financial dispute also illustrates the risks that can arise when buyers take occupation of a property before a sale has been completed.
While occupational rent can allow a purchaser to live in a property before transfer, the arrangement creates contractual obligations that can become contentious if the purchase falls through.
In this case, Ferguson’s company says the agreement collapsed after alleged payment defaults, while the Maharajs have indicated that they are seeking to resolve the matter through their lawyers.
The Johannesburg High Court will ultimately determine the parties’ rights if the dispute is not settled outside court.
