Godwill and Others v Van Rijswijk N.O and Others (10624/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 42 (11 February 2025)

Godwill and Others v Van Rijswijk N.O and Others (10624/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 42 (11 February 2025)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as their delay in bringing the application was unjustified and amounted to self-created urgency. The applicants were present when the eviction order was granted and had ample opportunity to oppose but failed to do so. Their assertion that rental payments constituted part payment for the purchase price was rejected as unfounded and unsupported by the lease or sale agreements. The right of first refusal had lapsed due to breach and non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions. The applicants did not demonstrate irreparable harm, as their true complaint was loss of preferred accommodation rather than homelessness. The...

Citation
[2025] ZAWCHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Godwill Nana Tuffour; Applicant: Godwill Patience Tuffour; Applicant: All those holding title through First and Second Respondents or occupying 'The Property' at 2[…] O[…] H[…], Fernwood Newlands, Cape Town; Applicant: The Municipality of Cape Town; Respondent: Anthonious Wilhelm van Rijswijk N.O.; Respondent: John George Mellitchey N.O.; Respondent: Christoffel Jacobus Botha N.O.; Respondent: Ian Max van Rijswijk N.O.; Respondent: John Daniel Wasserfall N.O.; Respondent: Knox Property Trust (IT 322/89)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2025
Case Number
10624/2024
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Urgent Application for Stay of Eviction Order Pending Rescission Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Lekhuleni
Legal Topics
Stay of Execution, Eviction, Rescission of Judgment, Urgent Application, Lease Agreement, Right of First Refusal
Civil Procedure Land and Property Stay of Execution Eviction Rescission of Judgment Urgent Application Lease Agreement Right of First Refusal

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godwill Nana Tuffour

Applicant

Godwill Patience Tuffour

Applicant

All those holding title through First and Second Respondents or occupying 'The Property' at 2[…] O[…] H[…], Fernwood Newlands, Cape Town

Applicant

The Municipality of Cape Town

Applicant

Anthonious Wilhelm van Rijswijk N.O.

Respondent

John George Mellitchey N.O.

Respondent

Christoffel Jacobus Botha N.O.

Respondent

Ian Max van Rijswijk N.O.

Respondent

John Daniel Wasserfall N.O.

Respondent

Knox Property Trust (IT 322/89)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Urgent Application for Stay of Eviction Order Pending Rescission Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established sufficient urgency to justify hearing the application on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the eviction order pending the outcome of the rescission application.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have demonstrated a prima facie right or irreparable harm justifying interim relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish genuine urgency, as their delay in bringing the application was unjustified and amounted to self-created urgency. The applicants were present when the eviction order was granted and had ample opportunity to oppose but failed to do so. Their assertion that rental payments constituted part payment for the purchase price was rejected as unfounded and unsupported by the lease or sale agreements. The right of first refusal had lapsed due to breach and non-fulfilment of suspensive conditions. The applicants did not demonstrate irreparable harm, as their true complaint was loss of preferred accommodation rather than homelessness. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of Counsel on Scale B.