SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2026-089853
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE 04 MAY 2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
BETHESDA CHRISTIAN CENTRE NPC & NPO
And
IBE: FORTUNE
(Identity Number: 6[...])
RAWSON PROPERTY GROUP
HOMEFIND24 (PTY) LIMITED t/a PROPERTY 24
(Company Registration: 2008/019235/07)
REGISTRAR OF DEEDS: PRETORIA
Applicant
First
Respondent
Second
Respondent
Third
Respondent
Fourth
Respondent
2
Heard on: 28 April 2026
Delivered on: 04 May 2026
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is
reflected and is electronically circulated to the parties/their legal representatives by
e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines. The date
for hand-down is deemed to be 04 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
KEKANA AJ
Introduction
[1] Before me is urgent a pplication brought in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform
Rules of the High Court. The Applicant seeks an interim interdict to preserve the
status quo, which is to prevent the disposal of the property pending the finalization of
the main application brought in December 2024 under case number. 2024-141493.
The first Respondent opposed the application on the grounds that the matter is not
urgent, urgency if any has been self-created.
Issues
[2] The crisp issue for determination before I even entertaining the merits is
whether the matter is urgent within the context of Rule 6(12).
Urgency
[3] The said property at issue was acquired by the first Respondent around July
2022. The Applicant became aware of this acquisition around July 2023. On or about
July 2023 , the first Respondent listed the property for sale through Morena
Properties, and listed it again with REMAX around late 2024 , in both instances the
Applicant was aware that the first Respondent intended to dispose the property.
3
[4] There was an attempt by the first Respondent to dispose the property by way
of an auction in January 2026, however, there was no action on the part of the
Applicant to preserve the property . The Applicant only launched this urgent
application when there was a second attempt to auction in April 2026. The April 2026
attempt to dispose is according to records , is the fourth attempt by the first
Respondent to dispose the property.
[5] In a nutshell the first Respondent the Applicant have delayed in instituting the
proceedings. The Applicant have known of the intention to dispose the property. The
risk averred by the Applicant that triggered this application has been in existence
from 2023 when the property was listed for sale through Morena Properties and later
through REMAX in 2024 . That which was not urgent then cannot now be urgent.
While the Applicant knew of the listing of 2023 and 2024, the Applicant did not seek
any relief to preserve the said property. The Applicant instituted proceedings in
December 2024, however, the Applicant did not find the need to pres erve the
property. It must be pointed out that the Applicant was already aware of the listings
mentioned above.
[6] The Applicant mentioned during the hearing of this application of the many
interlocutory applications that have been brought in the main action but at no stage
did the Applicant see the need to preserve the property. The second Respondent
(Rawson Property Group) had already voluntarily ceased all advertising of the
Property. The risk mentioned by the Applicant does not exist, there is no imminent
auction underway or that the Applicant can state is about to happen.
[7] The urgency if any was self -created. The Applicant had ample time to launch
an application to preserve the property. Had on numerous occasions been aware of
the first Respondent’s intention to dispose but chose not to act to preserve the
property. In Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Limited ,
property. In Dynamic Sisters Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Nedbank Limited ,
Adams J, held that:
“this court has consistently refused urgent application in cases when the
urgency relied upon was clearly self -created. Consistency is important in this
context as it informs the public and legal practitioners that Rules of Court and
4
Practice Directives can only be ignored at a litigant’s peril. Legal certainty is
one of the cornerstones of a legal system based on the rule of law”.1
[8] I will now turn to t he balance of convenience, t he harm the first Respondent
will suffer if the order is not granted outweighs the harm the Applicant will suffer if it is
granted not granted . The first Respondent may lose her own property which she
currently holds full ownership as a result of the conduct of a party who still have to
show if it has rights if any on the property. Nonetheless, the Applicant has a remedy
if the property is disposed, the Applicant can and will be able to institute an action for
damages and recover what it claims may be due to it.
[9] The Property is currently the subject of statutory enforcement proceedings by
the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. As at 21 April 2026, the municipal
account stood in arrears in the amount of R827 780.53. The Municipality has issued
formal Section 129 and 130 demand notices under the National Credit Act and has
threatened the issue of summons, the application for default judgment, the issue of a
warrant of execution against the Property.
[10] Applicant has failed to meet the requirements for urgen cy, the auction has
been withdrawn. Consequently, there is no immediate threat of disposal of the
property. The court has consistently held that to show urgency, you must
demonstrate that waiting for a normal court date would result in irreparable harm. In
the key case of Luna Meubel Vervaardigers v Makin 2, the court established that
urgency must be "real and not contrived," meaning the threat of harm must be
immediate, real, and substantial—not speculative or a mere inconvenience.
[11] I accordingly make the following order:
1. The application is struck off from the roll.
2. The Applicant to pay the costs of this application on a scale as
between attorney and client, including the costs of counsel where so
employed.
between attorney and client, including the costs of counsel where so
employed.
1 (081473/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 709 (21 August 2023).
2 1977 (4) SA 135 (W)
5
ND KEKANA
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT