Mabunda and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (1167/07) [2007] ZANWHC 66 (1 November 2007)

Mabunda and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (1167/07) [2007] ZANWHC 66 (1 November 2007)

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants in prayer 4, namely an interdict against the demolition of their homes, had already been granted in a previous order by Landman J. The matter was therefore res judicata and could not be re-litigated. Regarding urgency, the applicants failed to set out facts in their founding affidavits to establish urgency, and their counsel conceded this point. The court held that there was no justification for combining the contempt and interdict applications and that the matter did not warrant urgent consideration. Costs for the postponed hearing on 20 September 2007 were awarded against the applicants, and the respondent, as the successful...

Citation
[2007] ZANWHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Jonathan Boas Mabunda; Applicant: S A Nonyana; Applicant: P Mahlangu; Applicant: W K MabitseLA; Applicant: W Makena; Applicant: M O Madikela; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2007
Case Number
1167/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Contempt
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of 20 September 2007.
Judges
GURA
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Urgent Interdict, Contempt of Court, Housing Development, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Land and Property Res Judicata Urgent Interdict Contempt of Court Housing Development Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Boas Mabunda

Applicant

S A Nonyana

Applicant

P Mahlangu

Applicant

W K MabitseLA

Applicant

W Makena

Applicant

M O Madikela

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for an interdict against demolition of applicants' homes is res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the application is urgent and justifies abridgment of court rules.
  3. 3 Whether the Mayor of the respondent should be committed for contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the relief sought by the applicants in prayer 4, namely an interdict against the demolition of their homes, had already been granted in a previous order by Landman J. The matter was therefore res judicata and could not be re-litigated. Regarding urgency, the applicants failed to set out facts in their founding affidavits to establish urgency, and their counsel conceded this point. The court held that there was no justification for combining the contempt and interdict applications and that the matter did not warrant urgent consideration. Costs for the postponed hearing on 20 September 2007 were awarded against the applicants, and the respondent, as the successful...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of 20 September 2007.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • Costs to include those reserved on 20 September 2007.