IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case no:2025-251436
In the matter between:
DIANNE MORRELL APPLICANT
and
GRAHAM CHRISTOPHER MACFARLANE RESPONDENT
Coram: BHOOPCHAND AJ
Heard: 8 January 2026
Delivered: 8 January 2026
JUDGMENT
Bhoopchand AJ:
[1] This is an urgent application in which the applicant seeks condonation for
non‑compliance with the rules, together with an order staying the enforcement
of a ruling issued by the Rental Housing Tribunal on 12 December 2025. The
Tribunal directed the applicant to pay the landlord an amount of R10 1 591.06
by 1 January 2026. The applicant has instituted a Rule 53 review, and the
present application is brought pending the determination of that review.
[2] The applicant appears in person. A court may, within limits, assist an
unrepresented litigant to understand the issues that arise and to clarify matters
that are unclear on the papers. Such assistance is directed at ensuring fairness in
the conduct of proceedings and does not detract from the court’s duty to remain
impartial. The court may pose questions to clarify issues relating to service, the
chronology of events, or the nature of the relief sought. However, the court
cannot descend into the arena or supplement defects in the applicant’s case.
Urgent relief must be made out in the founding affidavit, and oral explanations
cannot cure the absence of essential averments or create a case not pleaded. The
matter must accordingly be determined on t he papers as they stand, with such
limited clarification as is permissible
[3] The first issue is service and condonation. The founding affidavit does
not explain how service was effected. The papers suggest that the respondent
was served by email, but no exp lanation is provided for the deviation from the
rules. While informal service may be accepted in urgent matters, the applicant
must still place sufficient facts before the court to justify condonation. That has
not been done. In urgent applications, Rule 6 (12) empowers the Court to
dispense with the ordinary forms and service and to adopt a procedure it
considers appropriate. While service by email ordinarily requires consent, the
decisive question in urgent matters is not consent but whether adequate notic e
decisive question in urgent matters is not consent but whether adequate notic e
of the application was brought to the respondent’s attention . Even if I were to
overlook this defect, the application fails on urgency and on the merits of the
interim relief sought.
[4] Turning to urgency, the applicant bears the onus to show that the matt er
cannot wait to be heard in the ordinary course. The Tribunal’s ruling was issued
on 12 December 2025. The applicant attempted to enrol the matter for 2 January
2026, but provides no explanation for the period between the ruling and that
date, nor for how the matter ultimately came to be set down for 8 January. More
importantly, the harm relied upon is financial in nature. The applicant states that
she is unemployed, has dependent children, and will suffer hardship if the ruling
is enforced. These circum stances evoke sympathy, but they do not constitute
legal urgency. The enforcement of a monetary award does not amount to
irreparable harm, and any prejudice can be reversed should the applicant
succeed in the review.
[5] The applicant has also failed to demon strate that she lacks an alternative
remedy. She has already instituted a Rule 53 review and is entitled, within that
proceeding, to bring an interlocutory application or an application on the motion
roll for a stay on proper papers. Th ose remedies remain available to her. The
existence of such alternative remedies undermines the claim to urgency.
[6] Even if urgency were established, the applicant has not made out a case
for a stay of enforcement under the principles in Gois t/a Shakespeare’s Pub v
Van Zyl 2011 (1) SA 148 (LC) . A stay of execution is granted only where real
and substantial justice requires it, or where injustice would otherwise result. The
applicant has not shown a well ‑grounded apprehension of imminent execution,
nor has she demonstrat ed that irreparable harm will result if the ruling is
enforced pending the review. The harm relied upon is purely financial, and the
applicant places no facts before the Court to suggest that the respondent would
be unable to repay the amount should the review succeed.
[7] For these reasons, the applicant has not made out a case for urgent relief .
The application is accordingly struck from the roll for lack of urgency. Given
the applicant’s personal circumstances and the fact that the matter is unopposed,
the Court makes no order as to costs.
ORDER
In the premises, the order that follows:
1. The application is struck from the roll for lack of urgency
2. Condonation is not determined, as the matter is struck from the roll.
3. The applicant is granted leave, if so advised, to pursue appropriate interlocutory
relief in the pending Rule 53 review.
4. There is no order as to costs
_____________________________
BHOOPCHAND AJ
Acting judge
High Court
Western Cape Division
Judgment was delivered ex tempore on 8 January 2026
Applicant in person.
Respondent not represented