Elisa and Others v Manhata and Others (HCA37/2017) [2019] ZALMPPHC 8 (14 March 2019)

Elisa and Others v Manhata and Others (HCA37/2017) [2019] ZALMPPHC 8 (14 March 2019)

The court found that the appellants failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict. While a prima facie right was established based on constitutional and cultural grounds, the harm alleged was ongoing and not imminent, as the increased levies had been implemented two years prior. The balance of convenience did not favour the appellants, as the respondents were performing a public function and their actions constituted administrative action subject to review. The proper remedy for the appellants was to seek review under PAJA, which they had not pursued. The Magistrate's Court was correct in dismissing the application, as no exceptional circumstances justified interim relief.

Citation
[2019] ZALMPPHC 8
Parties
Appellant: Malepeng Molatelo Elisa and Others; Respondent: Kgoshigadi M.R. Manthata; Respondent: Manthata Traditional Authority; Respondent: Madikeledi Rashalaga; Respondent: Members of the Executive Council, Department of COCHSTA, Limpopo Province
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2019
Case Number
HCA37/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Interim Interdict by Magistrate's Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
MF Kganyago, EM Makgoba
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Review of Administrative Action, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Constitutional Rights, Balance of Convenience
Administrative Law Civil Procedure Interim Interdict Review of Administrative Action Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Constitutional Rights 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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malepeng Molatelo Elisa and Others

Appellant

Kgoshigadi M.R. Manthata

Respondent

Manthata Traditional Authority

Respondent

Madikeledi Rashalaga

Respondent

Members of the Executive Council, Department of COCHSTA, Limpopo Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Interim Interdict by Magistrate's Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants were entitled to interim relief preventing the respondents from denying access to the graveyard and collecting levies.
  2. 2 Whether the Magistrate's Court was correct in dismissing the application on the basis of an alternative remedy.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellants failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict. While a prima facie right was established based on constitutional and cultural grounds, the harm alleged was ongoing and not imminent, as the increased levies had been implemented two years prior. The balance of convenience did not favour the appellants, as the respondents were performing a public function and their actions constituted administrative action subject to review. The proper remedy for the appellants was to seek review under PAJA, which they had not pursued. The Magistrate's Court was correct in dismissing the application, as no exceptional circumstances justified interim relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.