Williams v City of Cape Town and Others (2765/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 513 (6 November 2025)

Case Note

RIEDWAAN WILLIAMS v THE CITY OF CAPE TOWN AND OTHERS
[2025] ZAWCHC 39
6 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications regarding the principles of acquisitive prescription, the right to possess property, and the implications of long-term occupancy without formal transfer of title. The decision illustrates the delicate balance between statutory requirements surrounding property transfer and the constitutional rights of individuals to adequate housing and property security in the context of South African law.

Cases Cited

• Zondo and Another v Uthukela District Municipality and Another (D631/2014) [2014] ZALCD 32; (2015) 36 ILJ 502 (LC)
• Swissborough Diamond Mines v Government of RSA 1999 (2) SA 279 (T)
• Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221
• Treasure Trove Diamonds Ltd v Hyman 1928 AD 464
• Molteno Brothers v South African Railways 1936 AD 321
• Webster v Mitchell 1948 (1) SA 1186 (W)
• Gool v Minister of Justice 1955 (2) SA 682 (C)
• City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Afriforum [2016] ZACC 19; 2016 (6) SA 279 (CC); 2016 (9) BCLR 1133 (CC)
• Swanepoel v Crown Mines Ltd 1954 (4) SA 596 (A)
• Gencor Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Concor Technicrete v Potgieter 2004 (6) SA 491 (SCA)

Legislation Cited

• Prescription Act 68 of 1969
• Deeds Registries Act 47 of 1937
• Alienation of Land Act 68 of 1981
• Prescription (Local Authorities) Ordinance 16 of 1964
• State Land Disposal Act 48 of 1961

Rules of Court Cited

• Rule 28 of the Uniform Rules of Court

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court addressed an application by Riedwaan Williams for an interim interdict to prevent the City of Cape Town and others from transferring ownership of a property he has occupied for almost four decades. The case revolved around claims of ownership made under the Prescription Act, where the applicant argued that his long-term possession and payment of municipal charges should grant him the rights to the property, despite the formal ownership remaining with the City.

Key Issues

The key legal issues included the validity of the applicant's claim to ownership through acquisitive prescription, the applicability of the doctrine of estoppel, and whether sufficient grounds existed to grant an interim interdict.

Held

The court granted the interim interdict, temporarily restraining the transfer of the property pending the resolution of the applicant's substantive claim to ownership. The court found that the applicant demonstrated a prima facie case that warranted preserving the status quo, given the risk of irreparable harm should the property be transferred before the case was decided.

THE FACTS

Riedwaan Williams has occupied a property, sold by the City of Cape Town to Faldela Lewis in 1988 on a delayed transfer basis, for approximately 37 years. Lewis died in 2021 without taking transfer of the property. Williams claimed to have entered into an oral agreement with Lewis, which allowed him to occupy the property and pay municipal charges. Following Lewis's death, the City intended to transfer the property to her estate, prompting Williams to seek legal recourse to secure his long-standing residential status.

Williams asserted that he had continually maintained the property and paid the requisite municipal charges, with no challenge or eviction attempts from the City during these decades. In the face of potential displacement, he sought an interim interdict to prevent the property’s transfer until his claims to ownership could be adjudicated.

THE ISSUES

The court was tasked with resolving whether Williams could establish a prima facie right to the property based on his long-term occupation and payments, and whether an interim interdict could be granted given the circumstances presented. Central questions included the applicability of the Prescription Act and whether Williams's occupancy constituted a legitimate claim to ownership.

ANALYSIS

The court considered the requirements for an interim interdict, which includes establishing a prima facie right, demonstrating irreparable harm, and showing that the balance of convenience favors the applicant. It found that although Williams's case based on acquisitive prescription was tenuous, the consideration of his long-term residence, with payments made for services and improvements to the property, indicated a legitimate interest deserving of further examination.

The court acknowledged the complexity of property rights intertwined with the historical context of apartheid-era housing policies, which emphasized the need for a sensitive approach to decisions affecting housing. In its analysis, the court emphasized the importance of not rushing towards judgments that extinguish rights, however imperfect those claims may be.

REMEDY

The court granted an interim interdict preventing the transfer of the property to the deceased’s estate pending the resolution of Williams's substantive claim. It concluded that maintaining the status quo was critical until the final determination of ownership claims could be made. It also stated that the costs regarding this application should be deferred for later determination.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established in this case revolve around the application of acquisitive prescription and the courts' role in maintaining fairness and justice in property disputes, especially where long-term possession is concerned. The decision illustrates the balance between strictly adhering to statutory law relating to property transfer and the broader constitutional imperatives protecting rights to housing and dignity.

The ruling also underscores the importance of examining the facts and context of a claimant's occupancy alongside strict legal requirements, ensuring that justice is afforded to individuals facing potential dispossession based on historical agreements and informal arrangements.