REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF IOUTH AFRICA 
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
CASE NO: 63009/2014
DATE: 23 SEPTEMBER 2014
REPORTABLE
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
In the matter between:
MOLEMOLE MUNICIPALITY.........................................................................................lst  APPLICANT
REINLAND AND FILLING STATION CC.......................................................................2nd APPLICANT
and
PITSI WILLIAM MOKGEHLE......................................................................................1st RESPONDENT
TOBEDI LOUIS MABOTJA...........................................................................................2nd RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
KUBUSHI, J
[1] The applicants launched an application against the 1st and 2nd respondents for an order, in the main, interdicting, prohibiting and restraining the 1st respondent and all other persons from invading, occupying, entering or demarcating the land situated at Erf 441, 491 of Dendron extension 3, and Portion 2 of the farm Duitschland 169 LS (the property) and other ancillary orders.
[2] It is not in dispute that erf 441 of Dendron extension 3 is owned by the 2nd applicant and erf 491 of Dendron extension 3 and Portion 2 of the farm Diutschland belong to the 1st applicant. It is also common cause that the said property is the subject matter of a claim in terms of the Land Restitution Act. The 1st respondent is the chairperson of the Ga-Mabohlatjana Community, a claimant of the said land. That claim has not yet been finalised.
[3] According to the applicants’ deponent, Mr Nelson Noko Keetse (Keetse), he was informed by a co-employee during the week of 11 to 15 August 2014 that on or about 10 August 2014 the 1st respondent started a process of allocating erven situated on the property to various people unknown to him. In his capacity as the acting municipal manager, Keetse, investigated the allegations and confirmed that there are people on the property planting poles and starting to erect structures thereon. On behalf of the applicants, he is before the court seeking an order to stymie the unlawful land invasion.
[4] The 1st respondent is opposing the application on urgency and on the merits. He has raised a plethora of points in limine pertaining to the lack of authority to institute action by Keetse, the failure by Keetse to disclose material facts in the ex parte application, lack of jurisdiction and approaching the court with dirty hands.
[5] The evidence before me, which to a large extent is common cause between the parties, is that, on 9 August 2014 the respondents ‘started working the land’ on the property. As already stated, during the week of 11 to 15 August 2014, Keetse was informed that the 1st respondent was demarcating and allocating sites on the property. Keetse investigated the allegations and satisfied himself that indeed it was happening.
[6] On 20 August 2014, the applicants launched an application on an urgent basis before this court functioning as Limpopo High Court, Polokwane under case number 1234/2014. The matter was on the same day struck from the roll. There is no evidence on record on what ground the application was struck from the roll. The inference that one can come to is that it was struck from the roll for lack of urgency.
[7] The matter was issued and enrolled afresh by way of ex parte application in the Pretoria court for an order, on an urgent basis, as set out in the notice of motion. A new case number was allocated. It was then allocated to be heard on 22 August 2014. The application was heard by Tuchten J who issued a rule nisi returnable on 2 September 2014 calling upon the 1st respondent and all interested parties to show cause why the final relief prayed for in the notice of motion should not be granted.
[8] The uncontroverted evidence of the respondents is that the case serving before this court, i.e. the Pretoria court, is substantially on the same papers as the papers which served before the Polobwane court on 20 August 2014. Except for the language in certain places, nothing else was changed. The parties and the issues are the same as in the Polobwane matter.
[9] It is common cause that this fact was not disclosed to the judge hearing the application on 22 August 2014. Nothing in the founding affidavit was mentioned about the matter being earlier enrolled at the Polobwane court. And, according to the 1st respondent, the applicants deliberately omitted to disclose to the court hearing the application that the matter served in the Polobwane court and was struck? off the roll. The contention is that if the judge was provided with all the material facts and the correct information he would not have issued the rule nisi.
[10] In terms of s 6 (1) (e) of the Superior Courts Act, No 10 of 2013 (the Act) Polobwane is the main seat of the Limpopo Division of the High Court of South Africa. Subsection 6 (3) (a) of the Act provides that the Minister must, after consultation with the Judicial Services Commission, by notice in the Gazette, determine the area under the jurisdiction of a Division, and may in the same manner amend or withdraw such notice. However, in terms of s 50 (2) of the Act, notwithstanding the provisions of s 6 (1), the Gauteng Division, shall also function as the Limpopo Division until a notice in terms of s 6 (3) in respect of the Limpopo Division comes into operation. As of now, the notice has not come into operation and the Gauteng Division functions as the Limpopo Division with its main seat in Pretoria (s 6 (1) (c) of the Act). Until the notice comes into operation Polobwane operates as another seat of the Gauteng Division.
[11] In my view, it is not correct that proceedings instituted at a seat of a particular Division be instituted again in another seat of that Division or at the main seat of that Division whilst the initial proceedings have not been finalised. Proceedings instituted in any one of the seats of a particular Division are instituted for the whole of that Division. Where a party requires that proceedings be heard in another seat of a Division, or as in this instance, be heard at the main seat of a Division, the proper way is to have the proceedings removed from that seat of court to another. The removal of proceedings from one seat of a Division to another is done in accordance with the provisions of s 27 of the Act.
[12] Section 27 stipulates the following:
“Removal of proceedings from one Divition to another Division or from one teat to another in tame Divition
(1) If any proceedings have been instituted in a Division or at a seat of a Division, and it appears to the court that such proceedings -
(a) should have been instituted in another Division or at another seat of that Division; or
(b) would be more conveniently or more appropriately heard or determined -
(i)	at another seat of that Division; or
(ii)	...
that court may, upon application by any party thereto and after hearing all other parties thereto, order such proceedings to be removed to that other Division or seat, as the case may be.
(2) An order for removal under subsection (1) must be transmitted to the registrar of the court to which the removal is ordered and upon the receipt of such order that court may hear and determine the proceedings in question."
[13] Since the notice in terms of s 6 (3) (a) of the Act has not come into operation Polokwane operates as another seat of the Gauteng Division. It was therefore incorrect for the applicants to institute a fresh application in Pretoria well knowing that it has already instituted same in Polokwane. The applicants failed to follow the prescribed process of removing a matter from one seat of a Division to the other. This application is, therefore, not properly before this court.
[14] What is concerting is that it seems like this is becoming a trend, if it not so already. I must mention that this was a second application which served before me during my stint in the urgent court, under the same circumstances. The first one was from Johannesburg Local Division. In that case as well the applicant approached the Johannesburg Local Division for an interdict on an urgent basis. That court, on the grounds of lack of urgency, struck the matter from the roll. The applicant re-enrolled the matter afresh in the Pretoria court on urgency on the same papers that served before the Johannesburg court.
[15] In order to prevent this becoming endemic I would propose that a directive be accordingly formulated.
[16] Counsel for the respondents prayed for an order on the scale as between attorney and client. It is my opinion that this is one of the cases wherein a punitive costs order should be awarded. The applicants acted disingenuously by bringing this application in Pretoria and in so doing flouting the prescripts of this court. In my opinion by failing to follow the prescribed process the applicants denied themselves an opportunity to explain why the matter was struck from the roll and why it has become urgent again; and why it was now necessary that the matter be heard in the Pretoria seat instead of in Polobwane. The evidence before me, which is not challenged, indicates that there were judges in the Polobwane court who could have heard the matter. All the parties including their respective legal representatives stay and work within the area of jurisdiction of the Polokwane court and it would have been convenient for all concerned if the matter was heard in Polokwane.
[17] In the premises, I find that the proceedings are improperly before this court and as such the application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.
EM KUBUSHI
JUDGE OF THE HICH COURT
HEARD ON THE:03 SEPTEMBER 2014
DATE OF JUDCMENT:23 SEPTEMBER 2014
FOR 1st  &  2nd APPLICANTS : ADV A VAN WVK, instructed by PRATT LUYT &  DE LANGE  
 c/o VAN DER MERWE INC ATTORNEYS 
FOR 1st  & 2nd  RESPONDENTS: MR M CHIDI, from CHIDI ATTORNEYS
c/o RAMPHELA ATTORNEYS