One of the country’s most accomplished strategic communication consultants and fixers, Vuyo Mkhize, scored a decisive High Court victory on Christmas Day against his landlord over an unlawful eviction from his Pretoria residence.
Pretoria High Court Judge Linda Retief ordered K Carrim Residential Properties Pty Ltd, owned by Zaheed Carrim, to immediately restore possession and access to Mkhize and his family’s residence in Waterkloof Ridge. This follows a heated legal battle involving allegations of unlawful eviction, disputes over lease extensions and purchase options, and claims of malicious damage to property and intimidation.
Landlord instructed to reinstate possession
The court granted Mkhize and his partner Nokuthula Biyela their urgent application for a Mandament van Spolie. The latter refers to a legal remedy designed to restore possession to a party unlawfully deprived of it.
The order requires the landlord to reinstate the applicants’ peaceful possession by restoring access to the housing complex. And by also returning remote controls for the automated security gate, repairing damaged locks, and restoring the electricity supply.
The court also authorised the South African Police Service (SAPS) to assist the applicants in regaining access if compliance is not met within two hours of the order’s service. The court further ordered the landlord to pay the applicants’ legal costs. It stated: “The Respondent is ordered to immediately restore to the Applicants the undisturbed possession of the property described.”
Mkhize has been at the heart of many of the country’s most high-profile political, commercial, and legal battles over the past 20 years, while maintaining a low public profile. His list of former clients includes Unilever, former president Jacob Zuma, former Health Minister Zweli Mkhize, transport mogul Mandla Gcaba, and former police minister Bheki Cele. He also has close family ties to some of the most powerful taxi bosses in KwaZulu-Natal.
Social media slander
On December 24, social media influencer @AdvoBarryRoux tweeted that Mkhize was refusing to pay rent for seven months. The claim was repeated by @ChrisExcel on December 25.
In response, Mkhize referenced an individual named Mosa Mogale. He stated: “I choose to believe that all of this was nothing personal for Mosa Mogale, the various cops on his payroll and his band of Twitter izinkabis, such as @AdvoBarryRoux and @ChrisExcel. I just hope that they will also understand that there will be nothing personal in my suing the pants off all of them, either.”
He added: “My adversaries need to get it into their thick heads that I will not join them in their quest to turn this country into a jungle of lawlessness. Over my dead body will even a single drop of blood be spilt in my name.”
The legal dispute originated from a lease agreement signed in April 2024. It was set to expire in April 2025 with a provision for a month-to-month extension. The applicants alleged Carrim failed to honour a lease extension and a purchase option agreement.
Landlord ignored purchase option on lease
According to Biyela’s founding affidavit, “[Mkhize] and I have resided at the property since, on or about, 15 April 2024 under a written lease agreement.”
They further claim the respondent sold the property to Calovox Pty. Ltd. on December 19, 2025. And they did so without notifying them or honouring their purchase option.
Carrim argued the lease was terminated due to the applicants’ failure to pay the monthly rent of R25,000. He stated: “The Applicants failed to maintain the proper payments of the monthly rental that is due and payable. And the agreement of lease was, subsequent to the aforesaid failure, neglect and/or refusal to pay the monthly rental, cancelled.”
Court records showed an email from Mkhize on October 31, which read: “Kindly be advised that, whilst I remain mindful of the provisions of clause 10.5 of our lease agreement, I have now decided to divert our monthly rental payments to an attorney’s trust account until the resolution of our various disputes with yourselves.
“Please be also advised that I intend to offset any cost we are forced to incur in our bid to defend ourselves in the face of your persistent unlawful/criminal conduct against these monthly rentals.”
Forcible eviction without court order
Biyela detailed a series of incidents. He accused Carrim’s agents of attempting a forcible eviction without a court order. On December 19, 2025, four men claiming to represent the respondent stormed the property. Despite SAPS intervention from Brooklyn Police Station, the agents returned the next day. They removed belongings, damaged property, and locked the applicants out of parts of the house.
Biyela stated: “On 19 December 2025, at approximately 22h00, a group of four adult males claiming to be agents of the Respondent violently stormed the property and informed the Second Applicant and me that they were there to forcefully evict us.”
“Said agents readily admitted that they had not followed the due process required by the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act. And they were not in possession of a valid court order authorising their intended action.”
The situation escalated on December 21 when the electricity was cut and a group of men allegedly broke in. They caused further damage and started intimidating Mkhize, who had barricaded himself in the main bedroom. SAPS officers were called again.
The applicants have initiated three criminal cases at Brooklyn Police Station. The cases are for malicious damage to property and intimidation. And the police’s apparent inaction was also under the spotlight in the investigations.
Criminal cases against landlord
They have lodged a formal complaint with the office of the National Commissioner of Police. This is regarding the SAPS officers’ failure to prevent the alleged unlawful actions. Biyela emphasised, “[Mkhize], our children, and I are all severely prejudiced by the unlawful actions of the respondent’s agents.”
Carrim denied the allegations in court, claiming it was no longer the registered owner as of December 19, 2025″. This was when the property was transferred to Calovox Pty Ltd. He argued it could not be responsible for the alleged actions.
