Djoufang v Snyders and Others (Reasons) (2025/105798) [2025] ZAWCHC 297 (21 July 2025)

Djoufang v Snyders and Others (Reasons) (2025/105798) [2025] ZAWCHC 297 (21 July 2025)

The Court found that the Respondents' Notice of Appeal was delivered almost three months after the prescribed 20-day period and was not accompanied by a proper condonation application. The Notice was irregular and did not comply with the Magistrates' Courts Rules. The mere filing of a condonation application does not suspend the operation of the eviction order. The Sheriff was not justified in refusing to execute the warrant of ejectment. The Applicant was entitled to urgent relief, and the operation and executability of the eviction order were not suspended. Costs were awarded against the First, Second, and Fifth Respondents, jointly and severally.

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 297
Parties
Applicant: Fridolain Chamfort Djomo Djoufang; Respondent: Reginald David Snyders; Respondent: Speceline Snyders; Respondent: All Occupants of the Property; Respondent: Municipality of Stellenbosch; Respondent: Sheriff of the Lower Court, Stellenbosch
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 July 2025
Case Number
2025/105798
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Application granted. Declarator issued that the Notice of Appeal is defective and does not suspend the eviction order. Sheriff directed to execute the eviction. Costs awarded against First, Second, and Fifth Respondents jointly and severally.
Judges
Pangarker
Legal Topics
Eviction Proceedings, Magistrates Court Appeal, Condonation, Urgent Application, Notice of Appeal, Execution of Judgment
Civil Procedure Land and Property Eviction Proceedings Magistrates Court Appeal Condonation Urgent Application Notice of Appeal Execution of Judgment

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fridolain Chamfort Djomo Djoufang

Applicant

Reginald David Snyders

Respondent

Speceline Snyders

Respondent

All Occupants of the Property

Respondent

Municipality of Stellenbosch

Respondent

Sheriff of the Lower Court, Stellenbosch

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reasons for Order Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Notice of Appeal filed by the Respondents on 25 June 2025 was valid and suspended the eviction order of 13 March 2025.
  2. 2 Whether the application before the High Court was urgent and justified.
  3. 3 Whether the Sheriff was obliged to execute the eviction order despite the purported appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Respondents' Notice of Appeal was delivered almost three months after the prescribed 20-day period and was not accompanied by a proper condonation application. The Notice was irregular and did not comply with the Magistrates' Courts Rules. The mere filing of a condonation application does not suspend the operation of the eviction order. The Sheriff was not justified in refusing to execute the warrant of ejectment. The Applicant was entitled to urgent relief, and the operation and executability of the eviction order were not suspended. Costs were awarded against the First, Second, and Fifth Respondents, jointly and severally.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declarator issued that the Notice of Appeal is defective and does not suspend the eviction order. Sheriff directed to execute the eviction. Costs awarded against First, Second, and Fifth Respondents jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Condonation granted for non-compliance with time-periods, forms and processes; application declared urgent.
  • It is declared that the Notice of Appeal filed on 25 June 2025 is out of time, irregular and defective.