South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >>
2021 >>
[2021] ZAGPJHC 842
| Noteup
| LawCite
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Unlawful Occupiers of the Immovable Property at Portion 102 and Others (10264/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 842 (9 June 2021)
Download original files |
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 10264/2020
REPORTABLE: YES / NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
REVISED.
9/06/21
In the matter between:
CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY APPLICANT
and
THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF THE IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY AT PORTION 102, HOLGATFONTEIN 326
IR, NIGEL, also known as MACKENZIEVILLE EXT 2 1ST RESPONDENT
CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SAPS”) 2ND RESPONDENT
SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES
(“EMPD”) 3RD RESPONDENT
TIFFANY BARNARD (MS) 4TH RESPONDENT
NONHLANHLA MKHALIPHI (MRS) 5TH RESPONDENT
BRENDA OCTAVIA MKHALIPHI (MS) 6TH RESPONDENT
B J WILLARD (MR) 7TH RESPONDENT
SHARM ROGERS (MR) 8TH RESPONDENT
HANS KAYSTER (MR) 9TH RESPONDENT
LETOYA GIBBS (MS) 10TH RESPONDENT
SANA PRETORIUS (MRS) 11TH RESPONDENT
J CEASER (MR) 12TH RESPONDENT
JEANY NKOSI (MRS) 13TH RESPONDENT
GABRIEL LOTTERING (MR) 14TH RESPONDENT
ALLAN JOSEPH FORTUIN (MR) 15TH RESPONDENT
ALISTAIRE CLIVE MMULLE 16TH RESPONDENT
CHESLIN WINSTON ADAMS 17TH RESPONDENT
LUCIAN GALLON 18TH RESPONDENT
TSHEHLA KHUSTO SQUATE 19TH RESPONDENT
DELICIA BAMBISA 20TH RESPONDENT
MZWAKHE LAWRENCE HLOPHE 21ST RESPONDENT
WAHIED ELIE 22ND RESPONDENT
CHANTELL LEACH 23RD RESPONDENT
DERIO MARK LOUWSKITTER 24TH RESPONDENT
ELLAINE BEVERLEY MOPP 25TH RESPONDENT
ALRANE JULIAN BRANDT 26TH RESPONDENT
CRYSTAL VAN WYK 27TH RESPONDENT
GERALDINE KATRIENA MITCHELL 28TH RESPONDENT
LUCY TSOTETSI 29TH RESPONDENT
MARIA SCHROEDER 30TH RESPONDENT
SHARON MICHELLE CROTZ 31ST RESPONDENT
CLEOPATRA LIVOIDIA KIKIA 32ND RESPONDENT
SHIRLY-ANN SHOEMONE ESBEND 33RD RESPONDENT
JENNIFER WENDY DIENIE 34TH RESPONDENT
FARZAANA MANGERA 35TH RESPONDENT
MARRIAM JINA 36TH RESPONDENT
PHAKISO THABANA 37TH RESPONDENT
NATASHA BETTY WATSON 38TH RESPONDENT
THANDEKA FOURIE 39TH RESPONDENT
INALEE CHIRENE MALO 40TH RESPONDENT
MBALI SHARON MAIMELA 41ST RESPONDENT
SARAIT GEORGE 42ND RESPONDENT
JEROME BADENHORST 43RD RESPONDENT
YVONNE COETZEE 44TH RESPONDENT
RASHAAD IQBAL HASSIM 45THRESPONDENT
KEVIN EDWIN ATLEE 46TH RESPONDENT
HOLLITTO PAUL D’ALMEIDA 47TH RESPONDENT
THOBEKA MAHLANGU 48TH RESPONDENT
BRANDON MARTIN RICHARDS 49TH RESPONDENT
ALRANE BRANDT 50TH RESPONDENT
REAGAN GRANT SALLIE 51ST RESPONDENT
BERENICE ETHNE PETERSON 52ND RESPONDENT
NICO FRANCIS 53RD RESPONDENT
KYLE MULLER 54TH RESPONDENT
LOUIS PRECIOUS HERMANUS 55TH RESPONDENT
REAGEN WALTER BEKKER 56TH RESPONDENT
SUZETTE PEACOCK 57TH RESPONDENT
FELICIA MERCIA PEAHBHAY 58TH RESPONDENT
STELLA LAURA JOUBERT 59TH RESPONDENT
PATRICIA BOSMAN 60TH RESPONDENT
ELBERINA STEYN 61ST RESPONDENT
ELTON KING 62ND RESPONDENT
SHANE ZAAN BRANDT 63RD RESPONDENT
PIETHERMANES FILANDER 64TH RESPONDENT
QUINTON VAN WYK 65TH RESPONDENT
WYOLIN WENNAAR 66TH RESPONDENT
LEON PILLAY 67TH RESPONDENT
JULIUS CEASER 68TH RESPONDENT
VIVIEN HUMAN 69TH RESPONDENT
JACQUES MEYER 70TH RESPONDENT
VIDONIA NADIA KLEIN 71ST RESPONDENT
SAUL ROOI 72ND RESPONDENT
JOHN JACOBS 73RD RESPONDENT
ERNEST MAKHUBO 74TH RESPONDENT
LIZZY SMITH 75TH RESPONDENT
DOYI LETTIE ZWANE 76TH RESPONDENT
ANDRE ALEXANDER 77TH RESPONDENT
MALCOM CLYDE SMITH 78TH RESPONDENT
ANUSHCAR KLEIN 79TH RESPONDENT
THANDIWE MEFANE 80TH RESPONDENT
FATIMA SCHROEDER 81ST RESPONDENT
QUEENIE MARKGRAAF 82ND RESPONDENT
JOAN BHAQA 83RD RESPONDENT
DAVID WAGNER 84TH RESPONDENT
TEBOGO TSHELO 85TH RESPONDENT
ANNA LINA FRANCIS 86TH RESPONDENT
BONGANI JAMES NAPE 87TH RESPONDENT
MORNE KELLY 88TH RESPONDENT
CHRISTINE ABRAHAMS 89TH RESPONDEN
T SHELDON BADENHORST 90TH RESPONDENT
RASHEED JEREMIAH 91ST RESPONDENT
REAGAN GRANT SALLI 92ND RESPONDENT
HENDRIK VAN HEERDEN 93RD RESPONDENT
QUINTON WEBB 94TH RESPONDENT
LUCAS JOHANNESBATES 95TH RESPONDENT
GRAHAM GRAY 96TH RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH JOUBERT 97TH RESPONDENT
MBALI MAPHALALA 98TH RESPONDENT
LYDIA ROOS 99TH RESPONDENT
RICARDO SWARTZ 100TH RESPONDENT
RAQUEL BROOKS 101ST RESPONDENT
VANESSA WILLIAMS 102ND RESPONDENT
DANIEL MOHAPI 103RD RESPONDENT
DORAH VAN BILION 104TH RESPONDENT
NATALIE SNYDERS 105TH RESPONDENT
WILLBA CATHERINE SELINDER 106TH RESPONDENT
WARLIED BANOO 107TH RESPONDENT
BERENICE SWATZ 108TH RESPONDENT
LORENZO LOUW 109TH RESPONDENT
SHERYLENE LOUW 110TH RESPONDENT
FABIAN ZIEGERS 111TH RESPONDENT
RIAAZ ABDULLA GUMAN 112TH RESPONDENT
OCTAVIA ROUX 113TH RESPONDENT
LEEBAN ROUX 114TH RESPONDENT
MEGAN WEBB 115TH RESPONDENT
SAMANTHA ABRAHAMS 116TH RESPONDENT
MARCOLENE WEBB 117TH RESPONDENT
GERONIMO LOUW 118TH RESPONDENT
AZELIA FARLENE SOUTHEN 119TH RESPONDENT
RONA HOWARD 120TH RESPONDENT
M DEJONG 121ST RESPONDENT
LINDIWE NGUZA 122ND RESPONDENT
THULANI BUTHELEZI 123RD R ESPONDENT
PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNE 124TH RESPONDENT
ALIDA WANDA POST 125TH RESPONDENT
SHANEE DANIELLE 126TH RESPONDENT
DION SAMUEL JAMES HARRISON 127TH RESPONDENT
NKOSINATHI WILFRED NKOSI 128TH RESPONDENT
ISOLONE MICHELLE KENNY 129TH RESPONDENT
FIONA MARTIN 130TH RESPONDENT
ROBIN DIANE ADAMS 131ST RESPONDENT
SAMUEL BROWN 132ND RESPONDENT
JAUNITA SYLVIA BEUKES 133RD RESPONDENT
JACK ISAACS 134TH RESPONDENT
REGGIE CRISTJAN MOLEFE 135TH RESPONDENT
DOWNWAY STUURMAN 136TH RESPONDENT
THADEUS DUBER 137TH RESPONDENT
SHEREEZ BEYERS 138TH RESPONDENT
RENE’ BEYERS 139TH RESPONDENT
INGRID KOEKEMOER 140TH RESPONDENT
TLOU FRANS KGOMO 141ST RESPONDENT
PUTI PHINEAS KGOMO 142ND RESPONDENT
MADIMETJA STEPHEN NONG 143RD RESPONDENT
LESLEY JOHN MALONEY 144TH RESPONDENT
SHIELA STOMPIE ESAU 145TH RESPONDENT
MBALI MAPHALALA 146TH RESPONDENT
SONIA PATIENCE JENLLEE NAIDOO 147TH RESPONDENT
EDWIN SAMUELS 148TH RESPONDENT
PERSERVERENCE MAHLANGU 149TH RESPONDENT
BRENDON EPHRAIM KOCK 150TH RESPONDENT
LUCY DIPUO TSOTETSI 151ST RESPONDENT
GERT JOHANNES BLOCK 152ND RESPONDENT
KLARA IRENE FELICITY GEORGE 153RD RESPONDENT
BUSI CINDY MTSWENI 154TH RESPONDENT
RUAN BRANDON HOWARD 155TH RESPONDENT
CAROL ANNE CAROLS 156TH RESPONDENT
OSWILL BEYERS 157TH RESPONDENT
BEN SPEELMAN 158TH RESPONDENT
KARIEM ROOS 159TH RESPONDENT
BANELE NGWENYA 160TH RESPONDENT
RANDALL THOMPSON MABASO 161ST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH MAPOTO 162ND RESPONDENT
PERSERVERANCE JEANINE MABASO 163RD RESPONDENT
DUDUZILE REJOICE NENE 164TH RESPONDENT
RENE BEYERS 165TH RESPONDENT
CHARMAINE BEYERS 166TH RESPONDENT
RINA SWARTS 167TH RESPONDENT
ALLEGRO WILLARD 168TH RESPONDENT
SHADRACK MOKOENA 169TH RESPONDENT
GERTRUIDA JAARS 170TH RESPONDENT
MATHEW BERGMAN 180TH RESPONDENT
MARIA TSHABANGU 181ST RESPONDENT
EUGENE SAAL 182ND RESPONDENT
SONTO SABA 183RD RESPONDENT
ANTHONY MORRIS 184TH RESPONDENT
BUSISIWE MFAKU 185TH RESPONDENT
MAGGIE THANDY MAKHOBA 186TH RESPONDENT
ANDREA MAANSDORP 187TH RESPONDENT
SEVRIANO MARRICK BENTLEY 188TH RESPONDENT
FRANKLIN DAVIDS 189TH RESPONDENT
EMLYN SMITH 190TH RESPONDENT
MAHALI BRENDA MATLALI 191ST RESPONDENT
SENZO LOUIS MASEKO 192ND RESPONDENT
CAMPHERDANICA BROWN 193RD RESPONDENT
NHLANHLA VINOLIA MTIMUNYE 194TH RESPONDENT
IVAN FRANK MORRIS 195TH RESPONDENT
FARREL MARTIN 196TH RESPONDENT
DIEGO PROBET 197TH RESPONDENT
SALOME WHITNEY SMITH 198TH RESPONDENT
SOPHIE MARTHA MKALIPE 199TH RESPONDENT
BETTY MATSHIGA 200TH RESPONDENT
SHAULLIN GILBERT 201ST RESPONDENT
ZELDA CONSTANCE BRENDA ROOS 202ND RESPONDENT
ANDILE SHABALALA 203RD RESPONDENT
CHARMAINE ROOS 204TH RESPONDENT
ASHRIFF SHARIEF GUMAN 205TH RESPONDENT
KHAVELA TSUMANE 206TH RESPONDENT
PREVEIN FRANK VOLMINK 207TH RESPONDENT
THABISILE PRECIOUS PULE 208TH RESPONDENT
RICARDO DELLANO VISAGIE 209TH RESPONDENT
MALCOLM CLYDE SMITH 210TH RESPONDENT
PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNI 211TH RESPONDENT
ANDRE ALEXANDER 212TH RESPONDENT
HENRIETTE SWARTS 213TH RESPONDENT
CLEODINE NEL 214TH RESPONDENT
ANGELA SMITH 215TH RESPONDENT
BIANCA BADENHORST 216TH RESPONDENT
MARIA KLEINTJIE MOOS 217TH RESPONDENT
NDWAMATO DANIEL PHASWANA 218TH RESPONDENT
PRESTON CHARLES SOLOMONS 219TH RESPONDENT
SIDNEY KHAN 220TH RESPONDENT
BYRON MARCUS 221ST RESPONDENT
JESSICA ROSEMONDE SPEELMAN 222ND RESPONDENT
PATRICIA PHILANDER 223RD RESPONDENT
ANGELIQUE BROOKS 224TH RESPONDENT
DARRYL COX 225TH RESPONDENT
JOHN TSHABALALA 226TH RESPONDENT
BJ WILLIAMS 227TH RESPONDENT
BRAECHELLE WILLARD 228TH RESPONDENT
ROSETTA ROOS 229TH RESPONDENT
LORENZO LOUW 230TH RESPONDENT
LIZELLE MAGDELINE LOUW 231ST RESPONDENT
LABIONDE ANNE LOUW 232ND RESPONDENT
RAIDEN VAN WYK 233RD RESPONDENT
LINDIWE NGUZA 234TH RESPONDENT
EDITH KENNY 235TH RESPONDENT
URSULA PORCIA PETERSON 236TH RESPONDENT
JUSTIN MOOSA BROOKS 237TH RESPONDENT
LETHUKUTHULA SABELO NKOSI 238TH RESPONDENT
THOKOZILE PATRICIA ROUX 239TH RESPONDENT
DOCTOR KLAAS ZWANE 240TH RESPONDENT
STOFFEL RICARDO VAN HEERDEN 241ST RESPONDENT
STEPHANIE SCHALKWYK 242ND RESPONDENT
JAFTA EPHRAIM NKOSI 243RD RESPONDENT
SAUL MARTINS ROOS 244TH RESPONDENT
SHANEE KHAN 245TH RESPONDENT
NATASHA KLARA SKARNEK 246TH RESPONDENT
ANATTIO NHLAPO 247TH RESPONDENT
SAFIRAH MARUPENG MOKWANA 248TH RESPONDENT
RICHMAN NTOKOZA MATHE 249TH RESPONDENT
WONIQUE FERRIS 250TH RESPONDENT
SHANAY KORDOM 251ST RESPONDENT
ANNELINE VAN GREENEN 252ND RESPONDENT
ELROY PEACOCK 253RD RESPONDENT
EUGENIA GOLIATH 254TH RESPONDENT
CELA DE ABREU 255TH RESPONDENT
GOODMAN JOHANNES ZWANE 256TH RESPONDENT
ANGELA VAN DER WESTHUIZEN 257TH RESPONDENT
LINDA THEMBEKA GOVA 258TH RESPONDENT
ESTA MAHLANGU 259TH RESPONDENT
PINKANA EMILY HADEBE 260TH RESPONDENT
LUCHANDRE JANLE CORDELIA MARKGRAAF 261ST RESPONDENT
CHRISTINE THERESA ABRAHAMS 262ND RESPONDENT
KASHIEFA CHARLES 263RD RESPONDENT
NKOSIVEZWE SYDNEY MKONZA 264TH RESPONDENT
LOEKIE NAIDOO 265TH RESPONDENT
TINA MINAAR 266TH RESPONDENT
LAWRENCE ROOS 267TH RESPONDENT
GIOVANNO VERGAEL MOOS 268TH RESPONDENT
SIMONE BROOKS 269TH RESPONDENT
DARIUN MARSHALL 270TH RESPONDENT
CHESTER STEPHEN SOLOMONS 271ST RESPONDENT
ROSSLYN SMITH 272ND RESPONDENT
LYDIA MMAKGONE CHOEU 273RD RESPONDENT
NATASHA BRUMMER 274TH RESPONDENT
THANDIWE ANNAH MEFANE 275TH RESPONDENT
LOUISA PRECIOUS HERMANUS 276TH RESPONDENT
KEAGAN MARCO ROSE 277TH RESPONDENT
EMMANUEL DENNIS SMITH 278TH RESPONDENT
COLIN HENLEY ADRIAN MAY 279TH RESPONDENT
KARIN CLASSEN 280TH RESPONDENT
JESSICA DUANNE LOUWSKITTER 281ST RESPONDENT
GAVA EAGLESTONE 282ND RESPONDENT
WARREN ANGELO NAIDOO 283RD RESPONDENT
LEAREIL STEFFORD SHAWN 284TH RESPONDENT
DOCTOR KLAAS ZWANE 285TH RESPONDENT
FRANKLIN DAVIDS 286TH RESPONDENT
MARK HAROLD OGLE 287TH RESPONDENT
MPENDULO PROGRESS NZIMANDE 288TH RESPONDENT
DEIDRE PADAYACHEE 289TH RESPONDENT
JOHANNES JOEY WALES 290TH RESPONDENT
CHARDENE’ CLARISSA PADAYACHEE 291ST RESPONDENT
DAVID SMITH 292ND RESPONDENT
JOAN EUNICE KOEKEMOER 293RD RESPONDENT
MAUREEN SMITH 294TH RESPONDENT
MICHAEL DANIEL KOESNEL 295TH RESPONDENT
CHRISTO LOTTERING 296TH RESPONDENT
MARTHA VAN ROSS 297TH RESPONDENT
TANYA ABRAHAMS 298TH RESPONDENT
HENRICO MAANSDORP 299TH RESPONDENT
MARIA NIKLAAI 300TH RESPONDENT
ALISTER THERON 301ST RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH JOUBERT 302ND RESPONDENT
GERTRUIDA JAARS 303RD RESPONDENT
PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNE 304TH RESPONDENT
HILDA POPPIE MANCHO 305TH RESPONDENT
JOSEPH GEORGE KUNENE 306TH RESPONDENT
THEMBA LEDONGA 307TH RESPONDENT
ANGELA POONEN 308TH RESPONDENT
MAGGIE MASHIYANE 309TH RESPONDENT
MARIA TSHABANGU 310TH RESPONDENT
ANGELIQUE PEACOCK 311TH RESPONDENT
LUCY DIPUO TSOTETSI 312TH RESPONDENT
ELTON KING 313TH RESPONDENT
ESTHER MHLANGU 314TH RESPONDENT
ISOLONE KENNY 315TH RESPONDENT
ELFONZO VAN SCHALKWYK 316TH RESPONDENT
GRAHAM SMALE 317TH RESPONDENT
GERONIMO ENVER LOUW 319TH RESPONDENT
TEVIN FORTUIN 320TH RESPONDENT
MODIEHI THABANA 321ST RESPONDENT
KEAGAN ROSE 322ND RESPONDENT
SHAWN GOLIATH 323RD RESPONDENT
CHESLIN ISAACS 324TH RESPONDENT
DAVID TUKONE 325TH RESPONDENT
DEIDRE HEIDE PADAYACHEE 326TH RESPONDENT
NOMPUMELELO PHIRI 327TH RESPONDENT
CHRISTOPHER VAN SCHALKWYK 328TH RESPONDENT
ERIC SOUTHEN 329TH RESPONDENT
PINKANA HADEBE 330TH RESPONDENT
GENEVIEVE DOEKIES 331ST RESPONDENT
LATOYA ROUX 332ND RESPONDENT
SEROTO SAMUEL MORE 333RD RESPONDENT
URSULA LOUW 334TH RESPONDENT
FABIAN ZIEGERS 335TH RESPONDENT
SIMONE BROOKS 336TH RESPONDENT
ANDRIES ADAMS 337TH RESPONDENT
ARTHUR DINJANA 338TH RESPONDENT
LEONI CAROL LOUWSKITTER 339TH RESPONDENT
SELINA DU PREEZ 340TH RESPONDENT
ELROY PEACOCK 341ST RESPONDENT
TINA MINNAAR 342ND RESPONDENT
ANDREA MAANSDORP 343RD RESPONDENT
LORETTA LOUW 344TH RESPONDENT
VUSUMUZI LETHULI 345TH RESPONDENT
NONHLANHLA MKHALIPI 346TH RESPONDENT
CHENTONIQUE GOLIATH 347TH RESPONDENT
ANGELA SMITH 348TH RESPONDENT
NATASHA BRUMNER 349TH RESPONDENT
ADDEL LOTTIE ABRAHAMS 350TH RESPONDENT
CHADWIN AMIGO 351ST RESPONDENT
PORTIA BENNET 352ND RESPONDENT
AGNES BULELWA BOOI 353RD RESPONDENT
SIPHAKAMISO BUTHELEZI 354TH RESPONDENT
PHUMELELE MEITA BUTHELEZI 355TH RESPONDENT
SIPHINDILE BUTHELEZI 356TH RESPONDENT
PRETTY NOLUBABACO BAWUTI 357TH RESPONDENT
ADELAIDE NONHLANHLA CHILWANE 358TH RESPONDENT
NOMAXASIBE BERNIES DUIKER 359TH RESPONDENT
ZANDILE GINIZA 360TH RESPONDENT
JULIA GOMO 361ST RESPONDENT
THOKO GUMEDE 362ND RESPONDENT
BAISE GODSPHO HADEBE 363RD RESPONDENT
KHANYISILEMARIA HADEBE 364TH RESPONDENT
NONKULULEKO PRECIOUS HLONGWANE 365TH RESPONDENT
THEMBI PROSPERITE HLATSHWAYO 366TH RESPONDENT
PETER JABULANE KHANYE 367TH RESPONDENT
PHILEMON JEMSANA 368TH RESPONDENT
BOITUMELO KHOZA 369TH RESPONDENT
CHARLES KUBHEKA 370TH RESPONDENT
THEMBI NOMSA KHOZA 371ST RESPONDENT
MUSA KHUMALO 372ND RESPONDENT
ROSE KHUMALO 373RD RESPONDENT
EVA SALUKWATI KHUMALO 374TH RESPONDENT
SIBONGILE KHUMALO 375TH RESPONDENT
JACK TSHEPO KHAUOE 376TH RESPONDENT
ISMAEL BOY KODISANE 377TH RESPONDENT
MUSA BONGI KUBHEKA 378TH RESPONDENT
BEKISISA WELLINGTON LANGA 379TH RESPONDENT
KHANYISILE DAPHNEY LANGA 380TH RESPONDENT
THEMBA LEDONGA 381ST RESPONDENT
SPHELELE LANGELITHE SASONDO 382ND RESPONDENT
BRITAIN TSWAANE LETSEDI 383RD RESPONDENT
MARIA SENQOANE LETSOALO 384TH RESPONDENT
STHABISO PHILASANDE MABASO 385TH RESPONDENT
MERIDON PULEDI MAILULA 386TH RESPONDENT
NOLUTHANDO MABEDLA 387TH RESPONDENT
NKULULEKO MANANA 388TH RESPONDENT
PRECIOUS PHINDILE MANALENG 389TH RESPONDENT
ZANELE FLORENCE MAKILE 390TH RESPONDENT
LINDIWE MALANGA 391ST RESPONDENT
VUYISA MAKEYISI 392ND RESPONDENT
KGOTLELECO WINZARD MASHILE 393RD RESPONDENT
HANKI CHRISTOPHER MATEBULA 394TH RESPONDENT
MMABATHO MATLOU 395TH RESPONDENT
ROBERT MAHATLANE 396TH RESPONDENT
LIZZY TSHEPO MAYIU 397TH RESPONDENT
LUTHANDO ZOTHA MBATHA 398TH RESPONDENT
HLENGIWE MBATHA 399TH RESPONDENT
ANNA MAGUYO 400TH RESPONDENT
THOKOZWA MBENGWENE 401ST RESPONDENT
DUMISANI MKHWANAZI 402ND RESPONDENT
MUSA SABELO MAMBA 403RD RESPONDENT
MARIA SIBONGILE MANYIKA 404TH RESPONDENT
SOPHIA MAKALELA 405TH RESPONDENT
MERCEY MAKHOBA 406TH RESPONDENT
JEFFREY HLAMULA MAKHUBELA 407TH RESPONDENT
BUSISIWE MAOHONGELA 408TH RESPONDENT
NONTOMBI MASANABO 409TH RESPONDENT
MSAWENKOSI MASOND 410TH RESPONDENT
RAKONTANE FRANS MASETLA 411TH RESPONDENT
BETTY NOZINJA MATSHIGA 412TH RESPONDENT
THEMBA MAVUNDLA 413TH RESPONDENT
IDAH BUSISIWE MAZIBUKO 414TH RESPONDENT
SIBUSISO MARKSMAN MAZIBUKO 415TH RESPONDENT
NKOSANA MCOCO 416TH RESPONDENT
XOLANI MDOKWE 417TH RESPONDENT
PATRICK MDLALOSE 418TH RESPONDENT
NZUZO LUYANDA MDLULI 419TH RESPONDENT
JULIA MFELANI 420TH RESPONDENT
NOMFUNDO NOSIPHO MHLUNGU 421ST RESPONDENT
THANDEKA MKIZE 422ND RESPONDENT
DELISIWE MARTHA NKUTHA 423RD RESPONDENT
DUDUZILE AGNES MLAMBO 424TH RESPONDENT
MMAMPEELE LUCIA 425TH RESPONDENT
SIPHO MNGUNI 426TH RESPONDENT
MDUDUZI MNINZI 427TH RESPONDENT
JOSEPHMOFOKENG 428TH RESPONDENT
TSEBISO REPLY MOHLALA 429TH RESPONDENT
YVONNE MOFOKENG 430TH RESPONDENT
KENNETH MOKUBUNG 431ST RESPONDENT
HABUNENI ALETTA MOLOI 432ND RESPONDENT
NANDILE KARLINA MOPELI 433RD RESPONDENT
BRIAN MORAKE 434TH RESPONDENT
JAN MORAJANE 435TH RESPONDENT
RAESETJA AGNES MOTHIBI 436TH RESPONDENT
SIMPHIWE MPANGANE 437TH RESPONDENT
MARITS MPHAOJWANE 438TH RESPONDENT
NHLANHLA MTHIMUNYE 439TH RESPONDENT
JOYCE MSIZA 440TH RESPONDENT
MOSES NDANGANENI MUTHELO 441ST RESPONDENT
LAZOLA KHAYAKAZI TRACY MQUBE 442ND RESPONDENT
LWAZI CEBELIHLE MHLUNGU 443RD RESPONDENT
ELIZABETH NAMUNE 444TH RESPONDENT
SIPHO GENIUS NGUBANE 445TH RESPONDENT
CABANGILE NDLOVU 446TH RESPONDENT
SIYABONGA NGCOBO 447TH RESPONDENT
NOSIPHO NGOBESE 448TH RESPONDENT
LAURETIA NGUBANE 449TH RESPONDENT
JABULANI NKOSI 450TH RESPONDENT
MAKHOSINI NKOSI 451ST RESPONDENT
JAFTA EPHRAIM NKOSI 452ND RESPONDENT
TSHIDI FRANCIS NKOSI 453RD RESPONDENT
NGUBANI NOKWANDA 454TH RESPONDENT
STEPHINA NONG 455TH RESPONDENT
NELISIWE SINDISIWE NOTYELWA 456TH RESPONDENT
WILLY INNOCENT NTOMBELA 457TH RESPONDENT
NTOMBIFUTHI NDLANGAMANDLA 458TH RESPONDENT
SINOTHI MAXWELL NTULI 459TH RESPONDENT
NTOMBUSUTHI HAPPINESS PETER 460TH RESPONDENT
GODFFREY PHIRI 461ST RESPONDENT
NONDUMISO WENDY PHUNGULA 462ND RESPONDENT
LINDIWE RADEBE 463RD RESPONDENT
NOSIPHIWO NWELE 464TH RESPONDENT
SOLOMON MACWUELANE RADEBE 465TH RESPONDENT
SYLEVESTER LEHLOHONOLO SEMOUSA 466TH RESPONDENT
DOROMINAH SEROBE 467TH RESPONDENT
EMILY DIMAKATSO SETAI 468TH RESPONDENT
JAMES SHABANGU 469TH RESPONDENT
THULI DORIS SHOBA 470TH RESPONDENT
STHEMBISO SHOBA 471ST RESPONDENT
SIPHIWE SIBIYA 472ND RESPONDENT
TSHEPONG AMOS SIMANGO 473RD RESPONDENT
SIBNGILE EUNICE SIMELANE 474TH RESPONDENT
FRANCINA SEODISA 475TH RESPONDENT
MIYA SIYELANE 476TH RESPONDENT
NTLOKO SONWABO 477TH RESPONDENT
PATRICIA TSHABALAL 478TH RESPONDENT
BONGINKOSI TOKO 479TH RESPONDENT
LERATO INNOCENTIA TSOTETSI 480TH RESPONDENT
ESTHER THELMA VILAKAZI 481ST RESPONDENT
DUDUZILE CYNTHIA ZUNGU 482ND RESPONDENT
NKELI JAMES MAKUBUNG 483RD RESPONNENT
AURELIA FIKILE 484TH RESPONDENT
Date of Judgment: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by email, release to the library of the court and uploaded on caselines. The date and time for handing down judgment is deemed to be 10:h00 9 June 2021.
Summary: Confirmation of the rule nisi – eviction of the respondents from the incomplete and complete houses of the local government. The respondents conceded to the unlawful occupation of the property but demanded alternative accommodation and negotiations with the Municipality before they could be evicted.
Held that in the circumstances of this matter the court could not countenance the self-help approach adopted by the respondents and thus ordered their eviction.
Judgment
Molahlehi J
1. Before this court are two applications that were consolidated in the rule nisi issued by Keightley J on 5 June 2020. The applicant is the City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality, a Metropolitan Municipality (the Municipality) established in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government: Municipal Structures Act, of 1998. The individual respondents are, the individuals who are unlawfully occupying the houses at portion 102, Farm Holgatatfontein 326 IR, NIGEL also known as "MACKENZIEVILLE EXTENSION 2."
2. It was indicated during oral submission that the Municipality was not persisting with paragraph 9 of the interim order made by Keightley J. This is the part of the order that declared any of the respondents who did not comply with the interim order to be in contempt of the order. Therefore, it follows that this matter turns mainly on whether the rule nisi relating to eviction should be confirmed.
3. The respondent opposed both applications and raised a point in limine concerning the non-joinder of the provincial and national government.
Background facts
4. It is common cause that the Municipality designed a housing development project with funding assistance from the provincial government. The project's objective is to meet the Municipality's constitutional duty under section 26 of the Constitution of providing residents falling within its jurisdiction housing at McKenzieville Extension 2. The project commenced in 2017 and was intended to provide housing for about 600 people. It is common cause that following applications by residents in the area the Municipality developed a list of individuals who qualified for housing subsidy. The contractors appointed by the applicant had, by December 2019, managed to develop infrastructure for 568 stands and completed 51 houses, ready for occupation.
5. After December 2019, there was no progress in the project due to the expiry of the contractors' contracts. The other reason for the lack of progress was the National State of Disaster declaration under the Disaster Management Act 57 of 2002 by the State President in terms of which movements of people and gathering were restricted.
6. It is common cause that the respondents moved onto the land and occupied both the completed and incomplete housing structures in Mackenzieville Extension 2. Following this, the applicant obtained an order from this court authorising the South African Police and the Metro Police to attend at the site and identify those who had occupied the properties illegally and served them with the notice in terms of section 4(2) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).
7. It is common cause that during March 2020, the respondents invaded the complete and incomplete houses in the project. Those who occupied the incomplete structures completed them and fitted the windows and doors.
The respondent's defence
8. The respondents did not dispute that their conduct is unlawful. They contended that the Municipality is not entitled to evict them even though the occupation of the property was unlawful. Their defence is that they moved into the area out of necessity, arising from the regulations governing COVID – 19 promulgated under the National State of Emergency Disaster Management Act 57 of 2020. The other reason for invading the properties is that they had been rendered homeless after being evicted as backyard dwellers from their previous rented premises. They further contended that the Municipality could not evict them unless alternative accommodation was made available, including engaging with them in discussions regarding the eviction.
The non-joinder point
9. The respondents contend that the applicant ought to have joined these proceedings both the national and provincial governments. The test for non-joinder is set out by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Absa Bank Limited v Naude N.O and Others (20264/2014) [2015] ZASCA 97; 2016 (6) SA 540 (SCA) (1 June 2015)in the following terms:
"[10] The test whether there has been non-joinder is whether a party has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the litigation, which may prejudice the party that has not been joined. In Gordon v Department of Health, KwaZulu-Natal it was held that if an order or judgment cannot be sustained without necessarily prejudicing the interest of third parties that had not been joined, then those third parties have a legal interest in the matter and must be joined." (Footnotes omitted).
10. In Judicial Service Commission and Another v Cape Bar Council and Another,[1] the court held that:
"[12] It has by now become settled law that the joinder of a party is only required as a matter of necessity – as opposed to a matter of convenience – if that party has a direct and substantial interest which may be affected prejudicially by the judgment of the court in the proceedings concerned (see eg Bowring NO v Vrededorp Properties CC 2007 (5) SA 391 (SCA) para 21). The mere fact that a party may have an interest in the outcome of the litigation does not warrant a non-joinder plea. The right of a party to validly raise the objection that other parties should have been joined to the proceedings, has thus been held to be a limited one."
11. Applying the above test, in the present matter, I am of the view that the point raised by the respondents bears no merit. There are no facts supporting the contention that it was necessary to join the Provincial and National Government parties in these proceedings. Except that the Provincial Government provided funding for the project, there is nothing to show that it has a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this matter.
The eviction application
12. I now turn to deal with the merits of the eviction application. I have already pointed out earlier that the Municipality has abandoned paragraph 9 of Keightley J's order.
13. In his oral argument, the respondents' Counsel emphasised that the Municipality was obliged to provide housing for the respondents in terms of section 26 of the Constitution. Section 26 of the Constitution provides:
"(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures within each available resources to achieve progressive realisation of this right.
(3) No one may be evicted from their home or have their home demolished without an order of the court, made after considering all relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary eviction."
14. The starting point in considering the relief sought by the applicant is whether there has been compliance with the provisions of section 4 of the PIE Act. Section 4(1), (2) and (3) of PIE Act provides:
“ (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or the common law, the provisions of this section apply to proceedings by an owner or person in charge of land for the eviction of an unlawful occupier.
(2) At least 14 days before the hearing of the proceedings contemplated in subsection (1), the court must serve written and effective notice of the proceedings on the unlawful occupier and the municipality having jurisdiction.
(3) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), the procedure for the serving of notices and filing of papers is as prescribed by the rules of the court in question.
15. It is trite that once there has been compliance with the provisions of section 4 (2) of the PIE Act, the owner of the property cannot be denied the eviction order unless the respondents in opposing the relief disclose circumstances that will entitle them to remain on the property. In other words, upon satisfaction of the procedural requirements in the absence of special circumstances, the owner is entitled to the eviction order. Ndlovu v Ngcobo Becker and another v Jika 4 All SA384 [SCA at paragraph 17 to 19[2]
16. It is trite that section 4 of PIE Act does not deprive the owner of the ownership of the property that is the subject of unlawful occupation. As stated in Ndlovu v Ngcobo the effect of the PIE Act is to delay or suspend the exercise of the ownership rights of the landowners until a determination has been made, whether it is just and equitable to evict the unlawful occupiers and under what conditions.
17. As stated in Dwele v Phalatse and Others (11112/15) [2017] ZAGPJHC 146 (7 June 2017)[3], section 4 of the PIE Act contains both procedural and substantive provisions. The procedural provisions are found in sections 4(2), (3), (4) and (5), and the substantive provisions are in sections 4(6), (7), (8) and (9) of the PIE Act.
18. In the present matter, there is no dispute about the procedural aspects of section 4 of PIE. The relief sought by the applicant, which the respondents oppose, has to do with the substantive provisions of section 4 of PIE. In this respect, sections 4(6), (7), (8) and (9) of PIE Act read as follows:
"(6) If an unlawful occupier has occupied the land in question for less than six months at the time when the proceedings are initiated, a court may grant an order for eviction if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, after considering all the relevant circumstances, including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women.
(7) If an unlawful occupier has occupied the land in question for more than six months at the time when the proceedings are initiated, a court may grant an order for eviction if it is of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, after considering all the relevant circumstances, including, except where the land sold in a sale of execution pursuant to a mortgage, where the land has been made available or can reasonably be made available by a municipality or other Organ of State or another landowner for the relocation of the unlawful occupier, and including the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women.
(8) If the court is satisfied that all the requirements of this section had been complied with and that no valid defence has been raised by the unlawful occupier, it must grant an order for the eviction of the unlawful occupier, and determine-
(a) a just and equitable date on which the unlawful occupier must vacate the land under the circumstances; and
(b) the date on which an eviction order may be carried out if the unlawful occupier has not vacated the land on the date contemplated in paragraph (a).
In determining a just and equitable date contemplated in sub-section (8), the court must have regard to all relevant factors, including the period the unlawful occupier and his or his family have resided on the land question."
19. It is trite that in determining whether or not to grant an eviction order, the court has a discretion to be exercised, guided by what is just and equitable. See Ndlovu v. Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v. Jika 2004 (1) SA 114 (SCA) para 18. In determining whether there are just and equitable grounds to grant an eviction order, the court is obliged to have regard to all the relevant circumstances, including the availability of land for the relocation of the occupiers and the rights and needs of the elderly, children, disabled persons and households headed by women. The court is obliged to grant an eviction order if there is no valid defence and all the substantive requirement of section 4 of PIE are satisfied.
20. The inquiry following the above finding concerns the equitable date on which the unlawful occupier or occupiers must vacate the property. The date chosen for the eviction of the illegal occupiers has to be just and fair to all parties.
21. The relevant facts and circumstances in this matter that have to be taken into account in considering the relief sought by the applicant the following. As stated earlier, it is common cause that the respondents unlawfully occupied the completed and incomplete structures in the area. It is also common cause that, except for a few, most of them are not on the list of beneficiaries. However, those whose names appear on the beneficiaries’ list also did not act lawfully in occupying the houses before being properly allocated by the Municipality. It is apparent that the structures were not yet certified ready for occupation, neither were any of them provided with the certificate of occupancy. It, therefore, cannot be said that they are lawful occupiers.
22. When invading the, arear the respondents were fully aware that they were not on the list of beneficiaries. Their papers reveal that they were aware that other people in the area had successfully applied for the subsidy and were already on the waiting list.
23. In my view, the respondents' conduct should not be countenance by this court because otherwise, the rule of law would be compromised. In Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and Another (CCT23/99) [1999] ZACC 16; 2000 (1) SA 409; 1999 (12) BCLR 1420 (16 November 1999) the Constitutional Court per Mokgoro J said:
"No one is entitled to take the law into her or his own hands. Self-help, in this sense, is inimical to a society in which the rule of law prevails, as envisioned by section 1(c) of our Constitution, which provides:
'The Republic of South Africa is one, sovereign, democratic state founded on the following values:
. . . .
(c) Supremacy of the Constitution and the rule of law."
Taking the law into one's own hands is thus inconsistent with the fundamental principles of our law."
24. In addition to the defence of necessity, the respondents suggested that they were entitled to unlawfully occupy the properties because some of the Municipality officials were involved in fraudulent conduct about the development of the housing beneficiary list. They allege that one of the officials in the housing department was dismissed for being involved in fraud. This has not been substantiated in that there is no supporting documentary proof or supporting affidavit that the person was dismissed for fraud related to the list of housing beneficiaries. But more importantly, there is no averment that the alleged fraudulent list was ever reported to the police. There is also no indication as to why legal steps could not have been taken to interdict the implementation of the list before resorting to self-help.
25. In the circumstances of this case, refusing to grant an eviction order would result in what the Constitutional Court in, President of the Republic of South Africa and Another v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd (Agri SA and Others, Amici Curiae) 2005 (5) SA 3 CC at para 45)[4] referred to as a recipe for anarchy. It would also create a precedent for people to jump the queue and qualify themselves through the back door onto the housing lists in the municipalities. The other risk associated with refusing to grant an eviction in the circumstances of this matter is that the use of self-help would result in people losing confidence in the rule of law, which will invariably lead to unwanted public violence. This applies to the respondents' argument that they should only be evicted on condition the Municipality provides them with alternative accommodation.
26. As indicated earlier, the respondents' Counsel argued that the respondents had the right to housing in terms of section 26 of the Constitution, and I suppose that is why they should not be evicted until alternative land is found for them. However, the right is limited "within available resources to achieve the progressive realisation of this right."
27. The circumstances in the present matter is distinguishable to those in Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Various Occupiers, Eden Park Extension 5 2014 (3) SA 23 (SCA) wherein the Supreme Court of Appeal found that the Municipality had "displayed uncertainty as to the identification of those persons who were to be evicted and the integrity of the waiting list and the allocation process had been compromised." In the present matter, the Municipality engaged the services of the police to identify the people who had illegally moved .in the area, and there is no issue about the integrity of the process embarked upon in evicting all the illegal occupiers of the structures. It also important to note that at the time the Municipality instituted the eviction proceedings the respondents had taken possession of the properties for less than six months.
28. In light of the above, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case that it is just and equitable to evict the respondents from Mackenzi Extension 2. In other words, the Municipality made out a case for the confirmation of the rule nisi. In light of this and as already alluded to earlier, there is no need to deal with the issue of the interdict.
29. The issue that remains for determination is the date of the eviction. As alluded to earlier the respondents unlawfully took occupation of the properties that belonged to the Municipality. At the time of taking occupation of the properties they were aware that it was unlawful for them to do so. In this context it is just and fair to afford them a period of thirty days to vacate the properties in question.
30. In relation to costs of the applications, the Municipality’s Counsel conceded that in the circumstances of this case it would not be appropriate to allow the costs to follow the results.
Order
31. In the premises, the following order is made:
1. An order for the eviction of the First, Fourth to Four Hundred and Eighty Fourth Respondents and all those occupying the properties through and under them at the properties described as portion 102, of the farm Holgatfontein 326 IR, Nigel also known as Mackenzieville Extension 2 is granted.
2. The First and Fourth to Four Hundred and Eighty Fourth Respondents and all those claiming occupation through and under them are ordered to vacate the property by 7 July 2021.
3. In the event where the First, Fourth to Four Hundred and Eighty Fourth Respondents and all those claiming occupation through and under them failing to comply with the order set out above, then and in that event, the City of Ekurhuleni Police Services and or the South African Police Services and or assisted by the Sheriff of this Court or his lawful deputy and a Locksmith are ordered and directed to carry out the eviction order on or after 14 July 2021.
4. In the event where the First and Fourth to Four Hundred and Eighty Fourth Respondents and all those that occupy the property by virtue of, through or under them attempt to regain access or possession to the property after the eviction order has been executed by the Sheriff and/or his/her authorised deputy; the applicant does not need to approach this court for relief and the City of Ekurhuleni Police Services and or the South African Police Services and or assisted by the Sheriff of this Court or his lawful deputy and a Locksmith Sheriff and/or his/her authorised deputy are authorised and directed to take all legal steps to enforce this Court order once again, including enlisting the services of the South African Police Services and a Locksmith.
5. There is no order as to costs.
___________________
E MOLAHLEHI J
Judge of the Gauteng High Court.
APPEARANCES
For the applicant: Adv. E Sithole
Instructed by: Lebea Incoporated Attorneys
For the Respondent: Adv. D Brown
Instructed by. Chris Billing Attorneys
Heard: 31 May 2021
Delivered: 9 June 2021
[1] (818/2011) [2012] ZASCA 115; 2012 (11) BCLR 1239 (SCA).
[2] 4 All SA384 [SCA at paragraph 17 to 19
[3] (11112/15) [2017] ZAGPJHC 146 (7 June 2017)
[4] 2005 (5) SA 3 CC at para 45)