City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality v Unlawful Occupiers of the Immoveable Properties at Portion 102 and Others (10264/20) [2021] ZAGPJHC 396 (9 June 2021)

REPUBLIC OF South Africa

in the high court of south africa

gauteng local division, johannesburg

 

1. REPORTABLE: YES / NO

2. OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO

3. REVISED.

 

…………………….. ………………………...

DATE SIGNATURE

 

 

 

 

 

Case No: 10264/2020

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 1^ST RESPONDENT

 

CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN

POLICE DEPARTMENT (“SAPS”) 2^ND RESPONDENT

 

SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES

(“EMPD”) 3^RD RESPONDENT

 

TIFFANY BARNARD (MS) 4^TH RESPONDENT

NONHLANHLA MKHALIPHI (MRS) 5^TH RESPONDENT

BRENDA OCTAVIA MKHALIPHI (MS) 6^TH RESPONDENT

B J WILLARD (MR) 7^TH RESPONDENT

SHARM ROGERS (MR) 8^TH RESPONDENT

HANS KAYSTER (MR) 9^TH RESPONDENT

LETOYA GIBBS (MS) 10^TH RESPONDENT

SANA PRETORIUS (MRS) 11^TH RESPONDENT

J CEASER (MR) 12^TH RESPONDENT

JEANY NKOSI (MRS) 13^TH RESPONDENT

GABRIEL LOTTERING (MR) 14^TH RESPONDENT

ALLAN JOSEPH FORTUIN (MR) 15^TH RESPONDENT

ALISTAIRE CLIVE MMULLE 16^TH RESPONDENT

CHESLIN WINSTON ADAMS 17^TH RESPONDENT

LUCIAN GALLON 18^TH RESPONDENT

TSHEHLA KHUSTO SQUATE 19^TH RESPONDENT DELICIA BAMBISA 20^TH RESPONDENT

MZWAKHE LAWRENCE HLOPHE 21^ST RESPONDENT

WAHIED ELIE 22^ND RESPONDENT

CHANTELL LEACH 23^RD RESPONDENT DERIO MARK LOUWSKITTER 24^TH RESPONDENT

ELLAINE BEVERLEY MOPP 25^TH RESPONDENT

ALRANE JULIAN BRANDT 26^TH RESPONDENT

CRYSTAL VAN WYK 27^TH RESPONDENT

GERALDINE KATRIENA MITCHELL 28^TH RESPONDENT

LUCY TSOTETSI 29^TH RESPONDENT

MARIA SCHROEDER 30^TH RESPONDENT

SHARON MICHELLE CROTZ 31^ST RESPONDENT

CLEOPATRA LIVOIDIA KIKIA 32^ND RESPONDENT

SHIRLY-ANN SHOEMONE ESBEND 33^RD RESPONDENT

JENNIFER WENDY DIENIE 34^TH RESPONDENT

FARZAANA MANGERA 35^TH RESPONDENT

MARRIAM JINA 36^TH RESPONDENT

PHAKISO THABANA 37^TH RESPONDENT

NATASHA BETTY WATSON 38^TH RESPONDENT

THANDEKA FOURIE 39^TH RESPONDENT

INALEE CHIRENE MALO 40^TH RESPONDENT

MBALI SHARON MAIMELA 41^ST RESPONDENT

SARAIT GEORGE 42^ND RESPONDENT

JEROME BADENHORST 43^RD RESPONDENT

YVONNE COETZEE 44^TH RESPONDENT

RASHAAD IQBAL HASSIM 45^THRESPONDENT KEVIN EDWIN ATLEE 46^TH RESPONDENT

HOLLITTO PAUL D’ALMEIDA 47^TH RESPONDENT

THOBEKA MAHLANGU 48^TH RESPONDENT

BRANDON MARTIN RICHARDS 49^TH RESPONDENT

ALRANE BRANDT 50^TH RESPONDENT

REAGAN GRANT SALLIE 51^ST RESPONDENT

BERENICE ETHNE PETERSON 52^ND RESPONDENT

NICO FRANCIS 53^RD RESPONDENT

KYLE MULLER 54^TH RESPONDENT

LOUIS PRECIOUS HERMANUS 55^TH RESPONDENT

REAGEN WALTER BEKKER 56^TH RESPONDENT

SUZETTE PEACOCK 57^TH RESPONDENT

FELICIA MERCIA PEAHBHAY 58^TH RESPONDENT

STELLA LAURA JOUBERT 59^TH RESPONDENT

PATRICIA BOSMAN 60^TH RESPONDENT

ELBERINA STEYN 61^ST RESPONDENT

ELTON KING 62^ND RESPONDENT

SHANE ZAAN BRANDT 63^RD RESPONDENT PIETHERMANES FILANDER 64^TH RESPONDENT QUINTON VAN WYK 65^TH RESPONDENT

WYOLIN WENNAAR 66^TH RESPONDENT

LEON PILLAY 67^TH RESPONDENT

JULIUS CEASER 68^TH RESPONDENT

VIVIEN HUMAN 69^TH RESPONDENT

JACQUES MEYER 70^TH RESPONDENT

VIDONIA NADIA KLEIN 71^ST RESPONDENT

SAUL ROOI 72^ND RESPONDENT

JOHN JACOBS 73^RD RESPONDENT

ERNEST MAKHUBO 74^TH RESPONDENT

LIZZY SMITH 75^TH RESPONDENT

DOYI LETTIE ZWANE 76^TH RESPONDENT

ANDRE ALEXANDER 77^TH RESPONDENT

MALCOM CLYDE SMITH 78^TH RESPONDENT

ANUSHCAR KLEIN 79^TH RESPONDENT

THANDIWE MEFANE 80^TH RESPONDENT

FATIMA SCHROEDER 81^ST RESPONDENT

QUEENIE MARKGRAAF 82^ND RESPONDENT

JOAN BHAQA 83^RD RESPONDENT

DAVID WAGNER 84^TH RESPONDENT TEBOGO TSHELO 85^TH RESPONDENT ANNA LINA FRANCIS 86^TH RESPONDENT

BONGANI JAMES NAPE 87^TH RESPONDENT

MORNE KELLY 88^TH RESPONDENT CHRISTINE ABRAHAMS 89^TH RESPONDENT SHELDON BADENHORST 90^TH RESPONDENT RASHEED JEREMIAH 91^ST RESPONDENT REAGAN GRANT SALLI 92^ND RESPONDENT

HENDRIK VAN HEERDEN 93^RD RESPONDENT

QUINTON WEBB 94^TH RESPONDENT

LUCAS JOHANNESBATES 95^TH RESPONDENT

GRAHAM GRAY 96^TH RESPONDENT

ELIZABETH JOUBERT 97^TH RESPONDENT

MBALI MAPHALALA 98^TH RESPONDENT

LYDIA ROOS 99^TH RESPONDENT

RICARDO SWARTZ 100^TH RESPONDENT

RAQUEL BROOKS 101^ST RESPONDENT

VANESSA WILLIAMS 102^ND RESPONDENT

DANIEL MOHAPI 103^RD RESPONDENT

DORAH VAN BILION 104^TH RESPONDENT

NATALIE SNYDERS 105^TH RESPONDENT

WILLBA CATHERINE SELINDER 106^TH RESPONDENT

WARLIED BANOO 107^TH RESPONDENT

BERENICE SWATZ 108^TH RESPONDENT

LORENZO LOUW 109^TH RESPONDENT

SHERYLENE LOUW 110^TH RESPONDENT

FABIAN ZIEGERS 111^TH RESPONDENT

RIAAZ ABDULLA GUMAN 112^TH RESPONDENT

OCTAVIA ROUX 113^TH RESPONDENT

LEEBAN ROUX 114^TH RESPONDENT

MEGAN WEBB 115^TH RESPONDENT

SAMANTHA ABRAHAMS 116^TH RESPONDENT

MARCOLENE WEBB 117^TH RESPONDENT

GERONIMO LOUW 118^TH RESPONDENT

AZELIA FARLENE SOUTHEN 119^TH RESPONDENT

RONA HOWARD 120^TH RESPONDENT

M DEJONG 121^ST RESPONDENT

LINDIWE NGUZA 122^ND RESPONDENT

THULANI BUTHELEZI 123^RD R ESPONDENT

PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNE 124^TH RESPONDENT

ALIDA WANDA POST 125^TH RESPONDENT

SHANEE DANIELLE 126^TH RESPONDENT

DION SAMUEL JAMES HARRISON 127^TH RESPONDENT

NKOSINATHI WILFRED NKOSI 128^TH RESPONDENT

ISOLONE MICHELLE KENNY 129^TH RESPONDENT

FIONA MARTIN 130^TH RESPONDENT

ROBIN DIANE ADAMS 131^ST RESPONDENT

SAMUEL BROWN 132^ND RESPONDENT

JAUNITA SYLVIA BEUKES 133^RD RESPONDENT

JACK ISAACS 134^TH RESPONDENT

REGGIE CRISTJAN MOLEFE 135^TH RESPONDENT

DOWNWAY STUURMAN 136^TH RESPONDENT

THADEUS DUBER 137^TH RESPONDENT

SHEREEZ BEYERS 138^TH RESPONDENT

RENE’ BEYERS 139^TH RESPONDENT

INGRID KOEKEMOER 140^TH RESPONDENT

TLOU FRANS KGOMO 141^ST RESPONDENT

PUTI PHINEAS KGOMO 142^ND RESPONDENT

MADIMETJA STEPHEN NONG 143^RD RESPONDENT

LESLEY JOHN MALONEY 144^TH RESPONDENT

SHIELA STOMPIE ESAU 145^TH RESPONDENT

MBALI MAPHALALA 146^TH RESPONDENT

SONIA PATIENCE JENLLEE NAIDOO 147^TH RESPONDENT

EDWIN SAMUELS 148^TH RESPONDENT

PERSERVERENCE MAHLANGU 149^TH RESPONDENT

BRENDON EPHRAIM KOCK 150^TH RESPONDENT

LUCY DIPUO TSOTETSI 151^ST RESPONDENT

GERT JOHANNES BLOCK 152^ND RESPONDENT

KLARA IRENE FELICITY GEORGE 153^RD RESPONDENT

BUSI CINDY MTSWENI 154^TH RESPONDENT

RUAN BRANDON HOWARD 155^TH RESPONDENT

CAROL ANNE CAROLS 156^TH RESPONDENT

OSWILL BEYERS 157^TH RESPONDENT

BEN SPEELMAN 158^TH RESPONDENT

KARIEM ROOS 159^TH RESPONDENT

BANELE NGWENYA 160^TH RESPONDENT

RANDALL THOMPSON MABASO 161^ST RESPONDENT

JOSEPH MAPOTO 162^ND RESPONDENT

PERSERVERANCE JEANINE MABASO 163^RD RESPONDENT

DUDUZILE REJOICE NENE 164^TH RESPONDENT

RENE BEYERS 165^TH RESPONDENT

CHARMAINE BEYERS 166^TH RESPONDENT

RINA SWARTS 167^TH RESPONDENT

ALLEGRO WILLARD 168^TH RESPONDENT

SHADRACK MOKOENA 169^TH RESPONDENT

GERTRUIDA JAARS 170^TH RESPONDENT

MATHEW BERGMAN 180^TH RESPONDENT

MARIA TSHABANGU 181^ST RESPONDENT

EUGENE SAAL 182^ND RESPONDENT

SONTO SABA 183^RD RESPONDENT

ANTHONY MORRIS 184^TH RESPONDENT

BUSISIWE MFAKU 185^TH RESPONDENT

MAGGIE THANDY MAKHOBA 186^TH RESPONDENT

ANDREA MAANSDORP 187^TH RESPONDENT

SEVRIANO MARRICK BENTLEY 188^TH RESPONDENT

FRANKLIN DAVIDS 189^TH RESPONDENT

EMLYN SMITH 190^TH RESPONDENT

MAHALI BRENDA MATLALI 191^ST RESPONDENT

SENZO LOUIS MASEKO 192^ND RESPONDENT

CAMPHERDANICA BROWN 193^RD RESPONDENT

NHLANHLA VINOLIA MTIMUNYE 194^TH RESPONDENT

IVAN FRANK MORRIS 195^TH RESPONDENT

FARREL MARTIN 196^TH RESPONDENT

DIEGO PROBET 197^TH RESPONDENT

SALOME WHITNEY SMITH 198^TH RESPONDENT

SOPHIE MARTHA MKALIPE 199^TH RESPONDENT

BETTY MATSHIGA 200^TH RESPONDENT

SHAULLIN GILBERT 201^ST RESPONDENT

ZELDA CONSTANCE BRENDA ROOS 202^ND RESPONDENT

ANDILE SHABALALA 203^RD RESPONDENT

CHARMAINE ROOS 204^TH RESPONDENT

ASHRIFF SHARIEF GUMAN 205^TH RESPONDENT

KHAVELA TSUMANE 206^TH RESPONDENT

PREVEIN FRANK VOLMINK 207^TH RESPONDENT

THABISILE PRECIOUS PULE 208^TH RESPONDENT

RICARDO DELLANO VISAGIE 209^TH RESPONDENT

MALCOLM CLYDE SMITH 210^TH RESPONDENT

PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNI 211^TH RESPONDENT

ANDRE ALEXANDER 212^TH RESPONDENT

HENRIETTE SWARTS 213^TH RESPONDENT

CLEODINE NEL 214^TH RESPONDENT

ANGELA SMITH 215^TH RESPONDENT

BIANCA BADENHORST 216^TH RESPONDENT

MARIA KLEINTJIE MOOS 217^TH RESPONDENT

NDWAMATO DANIEL PHASWANA 218^TH RESPONDENT

PRESTON CHARLES SOLOMONS 219^TH RESPONDENT

SIDNEY KHAN 220^TH RESPONDENT

BYRON MARCUS 221^ST RESPONDENT

JESSICA ROSEMONDE SPEELMAN 222^ND RESPONDENT

PATRICIA PHILANDER 223^RD RESPONDENT

ANGELIQUE BROOKS 224^TH RESPONDENT

DARRYL COX 225^TH RESPONDENT

JOHN TSHABALALA 226^TH RESPONDENT

BJ WILLIAMS 227^TH RESPONDENT

BRAECHELLE WILLARD 228^TH RESPONDENT

ROSETTA ROOS 229^TH RESPONDENT

LORENZO LOUW 230^TH RESPONDENT

LIZELLE MAGDELINE LOUW 231^ST RESPONDENT

LABIONDE ANNE LOUW 232^ND RESPONDENT

RAIDEN VAN WYK 233^RD RESPONDENT

LINDIWE NGUZA 234^TH RESPONDENT

EDITH KENNY 235^TH RESPONDENT

URSULA PORCIA PETERSON 236^TH RESPONDENT

JUSTIN MOOSA BROOKS 237^TH RESPONDENT

LETHUKUTHULA SABELO NKOSI 238^TH RESPONDENT

THOKOZILE PATRICIA ROUX 239^TH RESPONDENT

DOCTOR KLAAS ZWANE 240^TH RESPONDENT

STOFFEL RICARDO VAN HEERDEN 241^ST RESPONDENT

STEPHANIE SCHALKWYK 242^ND RESPONDENT

JAFTA EPHRAIM NKOSI 243^RD RESPONDENT

SAUL MARTINS ROOS 244^TH RESPONDENT

SHANEE KHAN 245^TH RESPONDENT

NATASHA KLARA SKARNEK 246^TH RESPONDENT

ANATTIO NHLAPO 247^TH RESPONDENT

SAFIRAH MARUPENG MOKWANA 248^TH RESPONDENT

RICHMAN NTOKOZA MATHE 249^TH RESPONDENT

WONIQUE FERRIS 250^TH RESPONDENT

SHANAY KORDOM 251^ST RESPONDENT

ANNELINE VAN GREENEN 252^ND RESPONDENT

ELROY PEACOCK 253^RD RESPONDENT

EUGENIA GOLIATH 254^TH RESPONDENT

CELA DE ABREU 255^TH RESPONDENT

GOODMAN JOHANNES ZWANE 256^TH RESPONDENT

ANGELA VAN DER WESTHUIZEN 257^TH RESPONDENT

LINDA THEMBEKA GOVA 258^TH RESPONDENT

ESTA MAHLANGU 259^TH RESPONDENT

PINKANA EMILY HADEBE 260^TH RESPONDENT

LUCHANDRE JANLE CORDELIA MARKGRAAF 261^ST RESPONDENT

CHRISTINE THERESA ABRAHAMS 262^ND RESPONDENT

KASHIEFA CHARLES 263^RD RESPONDENT

NKOSIVEZWE SYDNEY MKONZA 264^TH RESPONDENT

LOEKIE NAIDOO 265^TH RESPONDENT

TINA MINAAR 266^TH RESPONDENT

LAWRENCE ROOS 267^TH RESPONDENT

GIOVANNO VERGAEL MOOS 268^TH RESPONDENT

SIMONE BROOKS 269^TH RESPONDENT

DARIUN MARSHALL 270^TH RESPONDENT

CHESTER STEPHEN SOLOMONS 271^ST RESPONDENT

ROSSLYN SMITH 272^ND RESPONDENT

LYDIA MMAKGONE CHOEU 273^RD RESPONDENT

NATASHA BRUMMER 274^TH RESPONDENT

THANDIWE ANNAH MEFANE 275^TH RESPONDENT

LOUISA PRECIOUS HERMANUS 276^TH RESPONDENT

KEAGAN MARCO ROSE 277^TH RESPONDENT

EMMANUEL DENNIS SMITH 278^TH RESPONDENT

COLIN HENLEY ADRIAN MAY 279^TH RESPONDENT

KARIN CLASSEN 280^TH RESPONDENT

JESSICA DUANNE LOUWSKITTER 281^ST RESPONDENT

GAVA EAGLESTONE 282^ND RESPONDENT

WARREN ANGELO NAIDOO 283^RD RESPONDENT

LEAREIL STEFFORD SHAWN 284^TH RESPONDENT

DOCTOR KLAAS ZWANE 285^TH RESPONDENT

FRANKLIN DAVIDS 286^TH RESPONDENT

MARK HAROLD OGLE 287^TH RESPONDENT

MPENDULO PROGRESS NZIMANDE 288^TH RESPONDENT

DEIDRE PADAYACHEE 289^TH RESPONDENT

JOHANNES JOEY WALES 290^TH RESPONDENT

CHARDENE’ CLARISSA PADAYACHEE 291^ST RESPONDENT

DAVID SMITH 292^ND RESPONDENT

JOAN EUNICE KOEKEMOER 293^RD RESPONDENT

MAUREEN SMITH 294^TH RESPONDENT

MICHAEL DANIEL KOESNEL 295^TH RESPONDENT

CHRISTO LOTTERING 296^TH RESPONDENT

MARTHA VAN ROSS 297^TH RESPONDENT

TANYA ABRAHAMS 298^TH RESPONDENT

HENRICO MAANSDORP 299^TH RESPONDENT

MARIA NIKLAAI 300^TH RESPONDENT

ALISTER THERON 301^ST RESPONDENT

ELIZABETH JOUBERT 302^ND RESPONDENT

GERTRUIDA JAARS 303^RD RESPONDENT

PHUMZILE LIZZY MNUNE 304^TH RESPONDENT

HILDA POPPIE MANCHO 305^TH RESPONDENT

JOSEPH GEORGE KUNENE 306^TH RESPONDENT

THEMBA LEDONGA 307^TH RESPONDENT

ANGELA POONEN 308^TH RESPONDENT

MAGGIE MASHIYANE 309^TH RESPONDENT

MARIA TSHABANGU 310^TH RESPONDENT

ANGELIQUE PEACOCK 311^TH RESPONDENT

LUCY DIPUO TSOTETSI 312^TH RESPONDENT

ELTON KING 313^TH RESPONDENT

ESTHER MHLANGU 314^TH RESPONDENT

ISOLONE KENNY 315^TH RESPONDENT

ELFONZO VAN SCHALKWYK 316^TH RESPONDENT

GRAHAM SMALE 317^TH RESPONDENT

GERONIMO ENVER LOUW 319^TH RESPONDENT

TEVIN FORTUIN 320^TH RESPONDENT

MODIEHI THABANA 321^ST RESPONDENT

KEAGAN ROSE 322^ND RESPONDENT

SHAWN GOLIATH 323^RD RESPONDENT

CHESLIN ISAACS 324^TH RESPONDENT

DAVID TUKONE 325^TH RESPONDENT

DEIDRE HEIDE PADAYACHEE 326^TH RESPONDENT

NOMPUMELELO PHIRI 327^TH RESPONDENT

CHRISTOPHER VAN SCHALKWYK 328^TH RESPONDENT

ERIC SOUTHEN 329^TH RESPONDENT

PINKANA HADEBE 330^TH RESPONDENT

GENEVIEVE DOEKIES 331^ST RESPONDENT

LATOYA ROUX 332^ND RESPONDENT

SEROTO SAMUEL MORE 333^RD RESPONDENT

URSULA LOUW 334^TH RESPONDENT

FABIAN ZIEGERS 335^TH RESPONDENT

SIMONE BROOKS 336^TH RESPONDENT

ANDRIES ADAMS 337^TH RESPONDENT

ARTHUR DINJANA 338^TH RESPONDENT

LEONI CAROL LOUWSKITTER 339^TH RESPONDENT

SELINA DU PREEZ 340^TH RESPONDENT

ELROY PEACOCK 341^ST RESPONDENT

TINA MINNAAR 342^ND RESPONDENT

ANDREA MAANSDORP 343^RD RESPONDENT

LORETTA LOUW 344^TH RESPONDENT

VUSUMUZI LETHULI 345^TH RESPONDENT

NONHLANHLA MKHALIPI 346^TH RESPONDENT

CHENTONIQUE GOLIATH 347^TH RESPONDENT

ANGELA SMITH 348^TH RESPONDENT

NATASHA BRUMNER 349^TH RESPONDENT

ADDEL LOTTIE ABRAHAMS 350^TH RESPONDENT

CHADWIN AMIGO 351^ST RESPONDENT

PORTIA BENNET 352^ND RESPONDENT

AGNES BULELWA BOOI 353^RD RESPONDENT

SIPHAKAMISO BUTHELEZI 354^TH RESPONDENT

PHUMELELE MEITA BUTHELEZI 355^TH RESPONDENT

SIPHINDILE BUTHELEZI 356^TH RESPONDENT

PRETTY NOLUBABACO BAWUTI 357^TH RESPONDENT

ADELAIDE NONHLANHLA CHILWANE 358^TH RESPONDENT

NOMAXASIBE BERNIES DUIKER 359^TH RESPONDENT

ZANDILE GINIZA 360^TH RESPONDENT

JULIA GOMO 361^ST RESPONDENT

THOKO GUMEDE 362^ND RESPONDENT

BAISE GODSPHO HADEBE 363^RD RESPONDENT

KHANYISILEMARIA HADEBE 364^TH RESPONDENT

NONKULULEKO PRECIOUS HLONGWANE 365^TH RESPONDENT

THEMBI PROSPERITE HLATSHWAYO 366^TH RESPONDENT

PETER JABULANE KHANYE 367^TH RESPONDENT

PHILEMON JEMSANA 368^TH RESPONDENT

BOITUMELO KHOZA 369^TH RESPONDENT

CHARLES KUBHEKA 370^TH RESPONDENT

THEMBI NOMSA KHOZA 371^ST RESPONDENT

MUSA KHUMALO 372^ND RESPONDENT

ROSE KHUMALO 373^RD RESPONDENT

EVA SALUKWATI KHUMALO 374^TH RESPONDENT

SIBONGILE KHUMALO 375^TH RESPONDENT

JACK TSHEPO KHAUOE 376^TH RESPONDENT

ISMAEL BOY KODISANE 377^TH RESPONDENT

MUSA BONGI KUBHEKA 378^TH RESPONDENT

BEKISISA WELLINGTON LANGA 379^TH RESPONDENT

KHANYISILE DAPHNEY LANGA 380^TH RESPONDENT

THEMBA LEDONGA 381^ST RESPONDENT

SPHELELE LANGELITHE SASONDO 382^ND RESPONDENT

BRITAIN TSWAANE LETSEDI 383^RD RESPONDENT

MARIA SENQOANE LETSOALO 384^TH RESPONDENT

STHABISO PHILASANDE MABASO 385^TH RESPONDENT

MERIDON PULEDI MAILULA 386^TH RESPONDENT

NOLUTHANDO MABEDLA 387^TH RESPONDENT

NKULULEKO MANANA 388^TH RESPONDENT

PRECIOUS PHINDILE MANALENG 389^TH RESPONDENT

ZANELE FLORENCE MAKILE 390^TH RESPONDENT

LINDIWE MALANGA 391^ST RESPONDENT

VUYISA MAKEYISI 392^ND RESPONDENT

KGOTLELECO WINZARD MASHILE 393^RD RESPONDENT

HANKI CHRISTOPHER MATEBULA 394^TH RESPONDENT

MMABATHO MATLOU 395^TH RESPONDENT

ROBERT MAHATLANE 396^TH RESPONDENT

LIZZY TSHEPO MAYIU 397^TH RESPONDENT

LUTHANDO ZOTHA MBATHA 398^TH RESPONDENT

HLENGIWE MBATHA 399^TH RESPONDENT

ANNA MAGUYO 400^TH RESPONDENT

THOKOZWA MBENGWENE 401^ST RESPONDENT

DUMISANI MKHWANAZI 402^ND RESPONDENT

MUSA SABELO MAMBA 403^RD RESPONDENT

MARIA SIBONGILE MANYIKA 404^TH RESPONDENT

SOPHIA MAKALELA 405^TH RESPONDENT

MERCEY MAKHOBA 406^TH RESPONDENT

JEFFREY HLAMULA MAKHUBELA 407^TH RESPONDENT

BUSISIWE MAOHONGELA 408^TH RESPONDENT

NONTOMBI MASANABO 409^TH RESPONDENT

MSAWENKOSI MASOND 410^TH RESPONDENT

RAKONTANE FRANS MASETLA 411^TH RESPONDENT

BETTY NOZINJA MATSHIGA 412^TH RESPONDENT

THEMBA MAVUNDLA 413^TH RESPONDENT

IDAH BUSISIWE MAZIBUKO 414^TH RESPONDENT

SIBUSISO MARKSMAN MAZIBUKO 415^TH RESPONDENT

NKOSANA MCOCO 416^TH RESPONDENT

XOLANI MDOKWE 417^TH RESPONDENT

PATRICK MDLALOSE 418^TH RESPONDENT

NZUZO LUYANDA MDLULI 419^TH RESPONDENT

JULIA MFELANI 420^TH RESPONDENT

NOMFUNDO NOSIPHO MHLUNGU 421^ST RESPONDENT

THANDEKA MKIZE 422^ND RESPONDENT

DELISIWE MARTHA NKUTHA 423^RD RESPONDENT

DUDUZILE AGNES MLAMBO 424^TH RESPONDENT

MMAMPEELE LUCIA 425^TH RESPONDENT

SIPHO MNGUNI 426^TH RESPONDENT

MDUDUZI MNINZI 427^TH RESPONDENT

JOSEPHMOFOKENG 428^TH RESPONDENT

TSEBISO REPLY MOHLALA 429^TH RESPONDENT

YVONNE MOFOKENG 430^TH RESPONDENT

KENNETH MOKUBUNG 431^ST RESPONDENT

HABUNENI ALETTA MOLOI 432^ND RESPONDENT

NANDILE KARLINA MOPELI 433^RD RESPONDENT

BRIAN MORAKE 434^TH RESPONDENT

JAN MORAJANE 435^TH RESPONDENT

RAESETJA AGNES MOTHIBI 436^TH RESPONDENT

SIMPHIWE MPANGANE 437^TH RESPONDENT

MARITS MPHAOJWANE 438^TH RESPONDENT

NHLANHLA MTHIMUNYE 439^TH RESPONDENT

JOYCE MSIZA 440^TH RESPONDENT

MOSES NDANGANENI MUTHELO 441^ST RESPONDENT

LAZOLA KHAYAKAZI TRACY MQUBE 442^ND RESPONDENT

LWAZI CEBELIHLE MHLUNGU 443^RD RESPONDENT

ELIZABETH NAMUNE 444^TH RESPONDENT

SIPHO GENIUS NGUBANE 445^TH RESPONDENT

CABANGILE NDLOVU 446^TH RESPONDENT

SIYABONGA NGCOBO 447^TH RESPONDENT

NOSIPHO NGOBESE 448^TH RESPONDENT

LAURETIA NGUBANE 449^TH RESPONDENT

JABULANI NKOSI 450^TH RESPONDENT

MAKHOSINI NKOSI 451^ST RESPONDENT

JAFTA EPHRAIM NKOSI 452^ND RESPONDENT

TSHIDI FRANCIS NKOSI 453^RD RESPONDENT

NGUBANI NOKWANDA 454^TH RESPONDENT

STEPHINA NONG 455^TH RESPONDENT

NELISIWE SINDISIWE NOTYELWA 456^TH RESPONDENT

WILLY INNOCENT NTOMBELA 457^TH RESPONDENT

NTOMBIFUTHI NDLANGAMANDLA 458^TH RESPONDENT

SINOTHI MAXWELL NTULI 459^TH RESPONDENT

NTOMBUSUTHI HAPPINESS PETER 460^TH RESPONDENT

GODFFREY PHIRI 461^ST RESPONDENT

NONDUMISO WENDY PHUNGULA 462^ND RESPONDENT

LINDIWE RADEBE 463^RD RESPONDENT

NOSIPHIWO NWELE 464^TH RESPONDENT

SOLOMON MACWUELANE RADEBE 465^TH RESPONDENT

SYLEVESTER LEHLOHONOLO SEMOUSA 466^TH RESPONDENT

DOROMINAH SEROBE 467^TH RESPONDENT

EMILY DIMAKATSO SETAI 468^TH RESPONDENT

JAMES SHABANGU 469^TH RESPONDENT

THULI DORIS SHOBA 470^TH RESPONDENT

STHEMBISO SHOBA 471^ST RESPONDENT

SIPHIWE SIBIYA 472^ND RESPONDENT

TSHEPONG AMOS SIMANGO 473^RD RESPONDENT

SIBNGILE EUNICE SIMELANE 474^TH RESPONDENT

FRANCINA SEODISA 475^TH RESPONDENT

MIYA SIYELANE 476^TH RESPONDENT

NTLOKO SONWABO 477^TH RESPONDENT

PATRICIA TSHABALAL 478^TH RESPONDENT

BONGINKOSI TOKO 479^TH RESPONDENT

LERATO INNOCENTIA TSOTETSI 480^TH RESPONDENT

ESTHER THELMA VILAKAZI 481^ST RESPONDENT

DUDUZILE CYNTHIA ZUNGU 482^ND RESPONDENT

NKELI JAMES MAKUBUNG 483^RD RESPONNENT

AURELIA FIKILE 484^TH RESPONDENT

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.

 

5. The contractors appointed by the applicant had, by December 2019, managed to develop infrastructure for 568 stands and completed 51 houses, ready for occupation.

 

6. 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.

 

7. 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).

 

8. 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

 

9. 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

 

10. 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).

 

 

11. 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."

 

12. 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

 

13. 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.

 

14. 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."

 

15. 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.

 

16. 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 19²

 

17. 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.

 

18. 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.

 

 

 

19. 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."

 

20. 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.

 

21. 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.

 

22. 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.

 

23. 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.

 

24. 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."

 

25. 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.

 

26. 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.

 

27. 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."

 

28. 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.

 

29. 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.

 

30. 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.

 

31. 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

 

32. 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