Proud Heritage Properties 60 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Alexander and Another (2025/208493) [2025] ZAWCHC 602 (2 December 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAWCHC 602 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Proud Heritage Properties 60 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Alexander and Another (2025/208493) [2025] ZAWCHC 602 (2 December 2025) Proud Heritage Properties 60 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Alexander and Another (2025/208493) [2025] ZAWCHC 602 (2 December 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2025_602.html sino date 2 December 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN) Case Number: 2025-208493 In the matter between: PROUD HERITAGE PROPERTIES 60 (PTY) LTD First Applicant HARALD MANFRED SEICK N.O. Second Applicant MATTHEW LAMONT WALTON N.O. Third Applicant HARALD MANFRED SEICK Fourth Applicant and ROY ALEXANDER First Respondent JO-ANNE GLADYS LEFSON Second Respondent Coram: Greig AJ Heard: 20 November 2025 Delivered: 2 December 2025 JUDGEMENT GREIG AJ Introduction [1] This is an urgent application claiming final relief composed of two parts seeking: (a) The eviction of the first respondent, Roy Alexander, from one of the rooms (the Vineyard Room) at the guest establishment operated by the first applicant, Proud Heritage Properties 60 (Pty) Ltd, known as ‘La Villa Retreat’ in Franschhoek. (b) A mandamus compelling the second respondent, Jo-Anne Lefson, to take all necessary steps to have herself removed as a signatory on Proud Heritage’s Nedbank account, and to have the general manager of Proud Heritage, Michelle Cronje, appointed as the only person authorised on the account. Background [2] For about 11 years Ms Lefson and the fourth applicant, Harald Seick, were in a romantic relationship during the course of which they separately acquired shares in various companies. One such company was Proud Heritage. Their romantic relationship ended in August 2024, resulting in various disputes between them, including an application at the instance of Mr Seick to liquidate Proud Heritage on just and equitable grounds. This application is set down for hearing in April 2026. [3] There are also in the background two further applications in this court which have been heard but which at the time of the hearing of this application still awaited judgement. In one, Ms Lefson and Mr Stevenson sought to interdict the third applicant, Matthew Walton, from continuing to purport to act on behalf of Proud Heritage, and to interdict Mr Seick from conducting its business. In the other, Ms Lefson and Mr Stevenson anticipated the return day of a rule nisi following an ex parte application brought on behalf of the Proud Heritage by Walton, in which Ms Lefson was evicted from the La Villa facility. The papers in these proceedings were not placed before me, and I mention them only by way of background and because the respondents allege that this application should be stayed on the basis that they render it lis pendens . [4] Proud Heritage alleges that Mr Alexander is occupying the Vineyard Room without its permission and has not rented the room. Proud Heritage says that the Vineyard Room is used for ‘ancillary purposes’ such as temporary accommodation for employees and storage of luggage for guests, particularly over the Christmas season. [5] Ms Lefson claims that Mr Alexander is entitled to occupy the Vineyard Room as her ‘special guest’. She says that, as a shareholder of Proud Heritage, she has permitted this occupation based on the fact that Mr Alexander is assisting in her business operated on part of the property, Farm Sanctuary. [6] Proud Heritage disputes Mr Alexander’s right to occupy the Vineyard Room on this basis, although it concedes that ‘when this room is not in use for the commercial purposes of Proud Heritage, it is available to accommodate directors, shareholders and other special guests who have been given permission to do so’. [7] Proud Heritage submits, however, that shareholders have no right to dispose of company property in this way, and that only the board of the company or its delegates can do so. Proud Heritage says that its sole director, [1] the third applicant, Walton, has not given his consent for the occupation by Mr Alexander of the Vineyard Room. [8] As to the issue of Ms Lefson’s status as a signatory on the Nedbank account, whilst the romantic relationship between Ms Lefson and Mr Seick continued, Ms Lefson was the sole director of Proud Heritage. However, on 1 June 2025, Ms Lefson resigned as a director. Proud Heritage claims that on this basis ‘the reason for her being a signatory on the account fell away’ but that, despite demand, she refused to relinquish her status as a signatory. The applicant alleges that Ms Lefson has unlawfully misappropriated more than R 63,000 to pay for her own expenses and unlawfully allowed Mr Alexander to use a debit card on the account. Urgency [9] As is evident from the above, there are two distinct and largely unrelated claims for relief in the notice of motion. Aside from the post-initiation timetable set by the applicants, which is common to both claims, the urgency of these disparate claims falls to be assessed against different factual backgrounds. [10] In this regard it is trite than an applicant who seeks urgent relief must provide a full explanation for its alleged urgency and for any delays in bringing the application in its founding affidavit. [2] An applicant may only deviate so far from the rules as is warranted by the urgency thus established. Urgency may not be self-created and ‘a litigant may not simply sit back without taking steps to seek urgent relief or seek such relief without a full and proper explanation for any delay in doing so.’ [3] [11] An applicant must further responsibly strike a balance between the rules and its entitlement to deviate from them, remembering that that such entitlement is dependent upon and derived from the urgency which it establishes on the papers. [4] Eviction of Mr Alexander from the Vineyard Room [12] Proud Heritage alleges that on 2 September 2025, three days after Ms Lefson was evicted from La Villa, she covertly installed Mr Alexander in the Vineyard Room without the prior permission of Mr Seick. [13] On 13 October 2025 a written demand was sent to Mr Alexander to vacate the Vineyard Room by 17 October 2025. He refused on the basis that he is Ms Lefson’s ‘guest’. [14] This application was thereafter launched on 4 November 2025. The respondents were required by the notice of motion to deliver answering papers by 12 November 2025, with the replying affidavit due by 17 November 2025. [15] Proud Heritage submits that ‘as with all evictions of unlawful occupants who have arrived unannounced…the relief sought is inherently urgent’, and further that any delays were not unreasonable, referring to Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality v Greyvenouw . [5] [16] Proud Heritage further asserts that paying guests, the Millar family, have booked the entire facility (including the Vineyard Room) for two days beginning on 10 December 2025 in terms of a booking made on 14 February 2025. They have paid the full amount, being R 61,110.00. Proud Heritage relies on the fact that the booking was made on 14 February 2025 to submit that the urgency is not self-created. It concedes, however, that the urgency ‘would have been self-created if the booking had been made subsequent to the discovery of Mr Alexander’s installation.’ [17] The respondents however submit that the applicants have engineered the Millar booking to include the Vineyard Room to manufacture grounds for the eviction. They seek to impugn email correspondence from Proud Heritage on 11 September 2025 which purports to confirm an arrangement made by Mr Seick personally with the Millar family in February 2025 for the Vineyard Room to be made available ‘to accommodate [the Millar family] fully’. [6] [18] The applicants’ failure to include any written confirmation of the original February 2025 booking is strange, but I am unable to conclude on the papers that the booking has been ‘manufactured’ as was submitted by the respondents in oral argument. [19] However, the applicants’ inaction from 2 September 2025, or latest 11 September 2025, for over a month to 13 October before a written demand was sent for Mr Alexander to vacate by 17 October, is not explained. [20] The subsequent delay between 17 October 2025 and 4 November 2025, when this application was launched, does not seem particularly unreasonable. [21] However, the choice of date for the hearing of 20 November 2025 is questionable. It was submitted by counsel for the applicants that the date was chosen to allow sufficient time between the hearing and the Millar booking. It is no doubt correct that an applicant should as far as possible avoid stipulating a date for the hearing which is on the brink of the alleged harm-causing event. Nonetheless, the choice of 20 November 2025, when the Millar booking was still nearly three weeks away on 10 December 2025, is not sufficiently explained, especially as the choice of this hearing date necessarily truncated the time afforded to the respondents to oppose this application. [7] [22] One cannot help concluding that, if a further week or so was afforded to the respondents to respond, their criticism of the timetable imposed would have been largely neutralised, with no prejudice to the applicants, and there would still have been enough time between the hearing and the impending Millar booking. There is no explanation for why this more reasonable course was not considered. [23] There is also little attempt in the founding affidavit to address the important issue as to why substantial redress may not be obtained in due course by means of a claim in damages. [8] The suggestion is made that: ‘ if the Vineyard Room is not available for the guests arriving on 10 December 2025, then Proud Heritage will be in breach of its contractual obligations and will certainly be subjected to critical and very damaging online reviews which will harm the company’s business.’ [24] But there is no suggestion that damages suffered as a result of this negative publicity cannot be recovered. [25] Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the alleged urgency of this leg of the relief has been sufficiently justified. Removal of Ms Lefson as a signatory on Proud Heritage’s Nedbank account [26] As to this relief it is common cause that since her resignation as a director of Proud Heritage on 1 June 2025 Ms Lefson has continued to have access to and make withdrawals and disbursements from Proud Heritage’s account. The applicants contend that Ms Lefson has abused her status as a signatory to misappropriate company funds. The respondents for their part contend that these impugned expenses were all incurred on behalf of Proud Heritage, including those incurred by Mr Alexander. They also aver that the Proud Heritage shareholders’ agreement entitles Ms Lefson to revenues from certain cottages. [27] The alleged misappropriations of company funds by Ms Lefson abusing her access on the account occurred, on the applicants’ version, as far back as January 2025. [9] [28] By 1 June 2025 Ms Lefson was no longer a director and ‘the reason for her being a signatory on the account fell away’, according to the applicants . [29] Several attempts were made by the applicants to remove Ms Lefson as a signatory by approaching Nedbank, but Nedbank apparently refused to countenance any such change without the cooperation of Ms Lefson herself. [30] The alleged misappropriation the following month by Ms Lefson on 8 July 2025 should have dispelled any illusion that the matter was not urgent. Indeed, on the applicants’ own version, shortly after this Walton attended a virtual meeting where he accused Ms Lefson in terms of stealing from the account. [31] Yet the applicants waited until 4 November 2025 to combine this relief in an application seeking the eviction of Mr Alexander from the Vineyard Room. The applicants’ prior insouciance is not explained and does not fit comfortably with the allegation that ongoing theft was being committed since for nearly a year. [32] The applicants’ discovery, after procuring video footage, that Mr Alexander was using the company debit card at Pick ‘n Pay on 14 October 2025, does not change the position. It is so that Mr Alexander’s use of the company’s credit card would have constituted a grave exacerbation of the abuse of the bank account which on the applicants’ version was underway. But the applicants should have moved to counter unauthorised expenditure months earlier. Had they done so this would have prevented Mr Alexander’s alleged escapade. [33] In the absence of any sufficient explanation, I am unable to completely discount the respondents’ submission that this second leg of the relief was an attempt at piggybacking on the Vineyard Room eviction, where the case for urgency was perceived as more favourable. In any event, even if this is not the case, there remains insufficient justification for the delays which occurred after the discovery of Ms Lefson’s alleged misappropriations. And, as with the eviction of Mr Alexander, the timetable and hearing date chosen is insufficiently motivated. Conclusion [34] In light of the above, I am not satisfied that the applicants have established the requisite degree of urgency for the claims they advance. [35] In respect of the eviction relief, the applicants’ unexplained inaction for more than a month after discovering Mr Alexander’s occupation of the Vineyard Room, coupled with the inadequately motivated choice of the hearing date, undermines the urgency. The applicants have not demonstrated that a less foreshortened timetable, which would have allowed the respondents more time to respond, would have occasioned them any prejudice, nor have they explained why they will not achieve substantial redress at a hearing in due course. [36] The position is even clearer regarding the relief directing the removal of Ms Lefson as a signatory on the Proud Heritage bank account. If Ms Lefson’s resignation as director on 1 June 2025 rendered her continued access to the account inappropriate, and the applicants were aware by 8 July 2025 of her alleged thefts from the account, the delays that followed, and the bundling of this relief together with the eviction application in November 2025, have not been explained, and instead point to self-created urgency. Order [37] For the above reasons the application is struck from the roll with costs. GREIG AJ Acting Judge of the High Court Appearances For Applicants:     Adv R J Howie Instructed by:        Matthew Walton & Associates For Respondents: Adv M van der Berg Instructed by:        S D P Attorneys [1] Proud Heritage contends that the other director, Mr Stevenson, has not formally been appointed as such as has not delivered to the company a written consent to serve as a director in terms of section 66(7)(b) of the Companies Act, 2008 . [2] Salt and Another v Smith 1991 (2) SA186 (Nm); Luna Meubel Vervaardigers (Edms) Bpk v Makin and Another (t/a Makin's Furniture Manufacturers) 1977 (4) SA 135 (W) [3] Mhonko's Security Services CC v City of Cape Town and Others (21132/2018) [2018] ZAWCHC 168 (30 November 2018) [4] See Gallagher v Norman's Transport Lines (Pty) Ltd 1992 (3) SA 500 (W) at 502I. [5] 2004 (2) SA 81 (SE) [6] It may be noted that the preceding email from Mark Millar on 9 September 2025 confirms a booking for ‘nine rooms for two nights including breakfast.’ By simple arithmetic the booking, which is to include ‘2 x Classic rooms, 3 x Superior Rooms, Mountain View Retreat, Pool Bar retreat, Stone Cottage and our Vineyard Room’, would thus seem to require inclusion of the Vineyard Room to make nine rooms in total. [7] The respondents were given four court days to file their answering affidavits, and one court day to file heads of argument, after receiving the applicants’ replying affidavit on Monday, 17 November 2025. [8] See e.g. East Rock Trading 7 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) Ltd and Others (11/33767) [2011] ZAGPJHC 196 (23 September 2011) at para 6. [9] On 22 January 2025 when Lefson was still a director a complaint was raised by the Seick Property Trust that Lefson made unauthorised purchases of furniture totalling R 619,656. sino noindex make_database footer start