Magdeline and Others v Indluplace Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (022833/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 366 (23 April 2025)

Magdeline and Others v Indluplace Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Others (022833/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 366 (23 April 2025)

The applicants failed to provide any factual basis or evidence to support their claims for restoration of utilities, responsibility for living conditions, or prevention of future ill-treatment. The relief sought was vague, ambiguous, and unenforceable, making it impossible for the respondents to determine their obligations. The requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the application was fatally flawed. The third respondent was improperly joined, as no facts established a direct or substantial interest. The applicants' attorneys were given notice of the intention to seek a costs order de bonis propriis and persisted with the application despite warnings. Their conduct...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 366
Parties
Applicant: Makoti Nthabiseng Magdeline; Applicant: Selahla Sewele Sarah; Applicant: Selomo Nthabiseng Salaminah; Applicant: Mashau Fumani Goldwin; Applicant: Singo Rofhiwa Millicent; Applicant: Madiba Leratoto Maria Mosima; Applicant: Nonyane Sharmain Ntwanano; Applicant: Nick Motebele; Applicant: Mugwena Tshifhiwa Arabi; Applicant: Charity Manganyi; Applicant: Nyiko Mukhari; Respondent: Indluplace Property Management (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Indluprop I (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Tshidi Mokou; Respondent: The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2025
Case Number
022833/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict and Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys.
Judges
W Domingo
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Misjoinder, Costs De Bonis Propriis, Vague and Ambiguous Relief, Enforceability of Orders
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Misjoinder Costs De Bonis Propriis Vague and Ambiguous Relief Enforceability of Orders

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Makoti Nthabiseng Magdeline

Applicant

Selahla Sewele Sarah

Applicant

Selomo Nthabiseng Salaminah

Applicant

Mashau Fumani Goldwin

Applicant

Singo Rofhiwa Millicent

Applicant

Madiba Leratoto Maria Mosima

Applicant

Nonyane Sharmain Ntwanano

Applicant

Nick Motebele

Applicant

Mugwena Tshifhiwa Arabi

Applicant

Charity Manganyi

Applicant

Nyiko Mukhari

Applicant

Indluplace Property Management (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Indluprop I (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Tshidi Mokou

Respondent

The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Final Interdict and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have made out a case for the relief sought in their notice of motion.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought by the applicants is vague and ambiguous.
  3. 3 Whether the third respondent was correctly joined as a party to the proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide any factual basis or evidence to support their claims for restoration of utilities, responsibility for living conditions, or prevention of future ill-treatment. The relief sought was vague, ambiguous, and unenforceable, making it impossible for the respondents to determine their obligations. The requirements for a final interdict were not met, and the application was fatally flawed. The third respondent was improperly joined, as no facts established a direct or substantial interest. The applicants' attorneys were given notice of the intention to seek a costs order de bonis propriis and persisted with the application despite warnings. Their conduct...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs de bonis propriis against the applicants' attorneys.

Orders

  • The applicants’ application is dismissed.
  • The applicants’ attorneys are to pay the first, second and third respondents' costs de bonis propriis.