Appollis and Another and Breede Valley Municipality and Others (09986/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 138 (24 March 2025)

Appollis and Another and Breede Valley Municipality and Others (09986/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 138 (24 March 2025)

The court found that the first respondent, Breede Valley Municipality, was at all relevant times aware of its constitutional and statutory obligations to provide suitable alternative accommodation to the applicants, who were rendered homeless by an eviction order. The municipality was cited as a party throughout the proceedings and was expressly informed that its report would be used in a settlement agreement to be made an order of court. Its subsequent complaints of lack of consent or consultation are disingenuous, as it failed to actively participate or object during the appeal. The respondents' defence of impossibility is rejected, as the municipality failed to take reasonable steps to...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 138
Parties
Applicant: Ralph Appollis; Applicant: Violet Murray; Respondent: Breede Valley Municipality; Respondent: Executive Mayor: Breede Valley Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager: Breede Valley Municipality; Respondent: Jarcon Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
09986/2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Main and Counterapplication
Outcome
The counterapplication to rescind the Court Order of 6 December 2024 is dismissed with costs. The applicants' non-compliance with forms, time periods, and service is condoned and the matter is deemed urgent. The first respondent is declared to have failed its constitutional obligations and is ordered to provide...
Judges
Slingers
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Extension of Security of Tenure Act, Municipal Obligations, Urgent Interdict, Rescission of Order, Constitutional Right to Housing
Land and Property Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Extension of Security of Tenure Act Municipal Obligations Urgent Interdict Rescission of Order +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ralph Appollis

Applicant

Violet Murray

Applicant

Breede Valley Municipality

Respondent

Executive Mayor: Breede Valley Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager: Breede Valley Municipality

Respondent

Jarcon Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Main and Counterapplication

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first to third respondents are obliged to provide the applicants with suitable alternative accommodation as per the settlement agreement and Court Order.
  2. 2 Whether the Court Order of 6 December 2024 should be rescinded on grounds of error, lack of consent, or procedural irregularity.
  3. 3 Whether the offer of alternative accommodation at Spokiesdorp constitutes suitable alternative accommodation for the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent, Breede Valley Municipality, was at all relevant times aware of its constitutional and statutory obligations to provide suitable alternative accommodation to the applicants, who were rendered homeless by an eviction order. The municipality was cited as a party throughout the proceedings and was expressly informed that its report would be used in a settlement agreement to be made an order of court. Its subsequent complaints of lack of consent or consultation are disingenuous, as it failed to actively participate or object during the appeal. The respondents' defence of impossibility is rejected, as the municipality failed to take reasonable steps to...

Court Disposition

The counterapplication to rescind the Court Order of 6 December 2024 is dismissed with costs. The applicants' non-compliance with forms, time periods, and service is condoned and the matter is deemed urgent. The first respondent is declared to have failed its constitutional obligations and is ordered to provide...

Orders

  • The first to third respondents' counterapplication to rescind the Court Order of 6 December 2024 is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where employed and on scale B.
  • The applicants' non-compliance with forms, time periods, and service required by the Uniform Rules of Court is condoned and the matter is deemed urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).