Madlala and Others v Senzo Edward Mchunu, MEC for Education, KZN and Others (7311/2012) [2016] ZAKZDHC 56 (14 December 2016)

Madlala and Others v Senzo Edward Mchunu, MEC for Education, KZN and Others (7311/2012) [2016] ZAKZDHC 56 (14 December 2016)

The court found that the main relief sought by the applicants—an interdict against the building of the school—had become moot because the school was completed and operational before judgment. The application to amend pleadings by the joined respondents was refused as it would replace the original dispute with a new one, contrary to procedural rules. The joinder/interdict application was dismissed since the underlying issue no longer existed. The court held that an interdict is only appropriate where future harm is reasonably apprehended, which was not the case here. Costs were awarded against the joined respondents for the amendment and joinder/interdict applications, but no costs order...

Citation
[2016] ZAKZDHC 56
Parties
Applicant: Mbongeni Thamsanqa Madlala; Applicant: Ntombifikile Marriam Sibiya; Applicant: Raymond Mpumelelo Msomi; Applicant: Reginald Mfeka; Applicant: Nozipho Beatrice Zwane; Applicant: Angeline Ntombizodwa Mzinyane; Respondent: Senzo Edward Mchunu, MEC for Education, KZN; Respondent: Department of Education, KZN; Respondent: Mangangeni Emmaus Westmead Returners Community Trust; Respondent: Muntozwayo Solomon Phewa; Respondent: Bobo Athanasius Mobhozi; Respondent: Thembi Ammaclettaj Mbili; Respondent: Hendry Sandile Hlengwa; Respondent: Sizakele Paulina Molefe
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2016
Case Number
7311/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Rule Nisi, Amendment, and Joinder/interdict Applications
Outcome
Application to amend refused; joinder/interdict application dismissed; main rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against joined respondents for amendment and joinder/interdict applications; no costs order in main application.
Judges
Mngadi
Legal Topics
Trusteeship Dispute, Interdict, Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, School Land Use
Land and Property Civil Procedure Trusteeship Dispute Interdict Joinder of Parties Amendment of Pleadings School Land Use

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mbongeni Thamsanqa Madlala

Applicant

Ntombifikile Marriam Sibiya

Applicant

Raymond Mpumelelo Msomi

Applicant

Reginald Mfeka

Applicant

Nozipho Beatrice Zwane

Applicant

Angeline Ntombizodwa Mzinyane

Applicant

Senzo Edward Mchunu, MEC for Education, KZN

Respondent

Department of Education, KZN

Respondent

Mangangeni Emmaus Westmead Returners Community Trust

Respondent

Muntozwayo Solomon Phewa

Respondent

Bobo Athanasius Mobhozi

Respondent

Thembi Ammaclettaj Mbili

Respondent

Hendry Sandile Hlengwa

Respondent

Sizakele Paulina Molefe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment After Hearing on Rule Nisi, Amendment, and Joinder/interdict Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are the legitimate trustees of the Mangangeni Emmaus Westmead Returners Community Trust.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted lawfully in building Tshelimnyama Primary School on trust land without a written agreement.
  3. 3 Whether an interdict is appropriate given the school has already been built and is operational.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the main relief sought by the applicants—an interdict against the building of the school—had become moot because the school was completed and operational before judgment. The application to amend pleadings by the joined respondents was refused as it would replace the original dispute with a new one, contrary to procedural rules. The joinder/interdict application was dismissed since the underlying issue no longer existed. The court held that an interdict is only appropriate where future harm is reasonably apprehended, which was not the case here. Costs were awarded against the joined respondents for the amendment and joinder/interdict applications, but no costs order...

Court Disposition

Application to amend refused; joinder/interdict application dismissed; main rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against joined respondents for amendment and joinder/interdict applications; no costs order in main application.

Orders

  • The application to amend is refused. The fourth to eighth respondents are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.
  • The rule nisi to join others as applicants and the interdict relating thereto is discharged with costs. The fourth to eighth respondents are ordered to pay costs jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.