Blue Print Housing (PTY) Ltd and Another v Loeto and Others (048243/22) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1000 (5 December 2022)

Blue Print Housing (PTY) Ltd and Another v Loeto and Others (048243/22) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1000 (5 December 2022)

The court found the application urgent due to ongoing threats, violence, and disruption of the applicants' property development activities, coupled with police inaction. The applicants established a clear right to develop the property and a reasonable apprehension of harm based on the respondents' conduct. The respondents' denials were either bald or contradicted by admissions of violence. The applicants demonstrated that no substantial redress was available through ordinary remedies, as police intervention had failed. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: a clear right, injury apprehended, and no alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 1000
Parties
Applicant: Blue Print Housing (PTY) Ltd; Applicant: Dino Properties (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Fleance Loeto; Respondent: Siviwe September; Respondent: Sisanda Thompson; Respondent: Lungisizwe Stafans; Respondent: Mzukisi Jada; Respondent: Snethemba Nkabi; Respondent: Zuko Soyamba; Respondent: Nandipha Coba; Respondent: Itumeleng Alfred Mothlankana; Respondent: Those persons attempting to interfere with the applicants’ business activities and development at the property; Respondent: Business activities and employees at their head offices; Respondent: The Station Commander of the Roodepoort Police Station: Brigadier Irene Sekwakwa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 December 2022
Case Number
048243/22
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict on Urgent Basis
Outcome
Final interdict granted on an urgent basis against the first to eleventh respondents; costs awarded against them.
Judges
N Muvangua
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Property Development Dispute, Violence and Intimidation, Alternative Remedy, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Property Development Dispute Violence and Intimidation Alternative Remedy Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Blue Print Housing (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Dino Properties (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Fleance Loeto

Respondent

Siviwe September

Respondent

Sisanda Thompson

Respondent

Lungisizwe Stafans

Respondent

Mzukisi Jada

Respondent

Snethemba Nkabi

Respondent

Zuko Soyamba

Respondent

Nandipha Coba

Respondent

Itumeleng Alfred Mothlankana

Respondent

Those persons attempting to interfere with the applicants’ business activities and development at the property

Respondent

Business activities and employees at their head offices

Respondent

The Station Commander of the Roodepoort Police Station: Brigadier Irene Sekwakwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict on Urgent Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established the requirements for a final or interim interdict against the respondents.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have an alternative remedy available to them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the application urgent due to ongoing threats, violence, and disruption of the applicants' property development activities, coupled with police inaction. The applicants established a clear right to develop the property and a reasonable apprehension of harm based on the respondents' conduct. The respondents' denials were either bald or contradicted by admissions of violence. The applicants demonstrated that no substantial redress was available through ordinary remedies, as police intervention had failed. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied: a clear right, injury apprehended, and no alternative remedy. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted on an urgent basis against the first to eleventh respondents; costs awarded against them.

Orders

  • The first to eleventh respondents are interdicted and restrained from interfering with the applicants’ facilities, installations, buildings, construction sites, agents, contractors, sub-contractors, labourers, or any other person at the property described as The Remaining Extent of Portions 1 and 5 and Portion 404...
  • The first to eleventh respondents are interdicted from threatening, intimidating, harassing, or assaulting any agents, contractors, sub-contractors, labourers, and any other person at the property.