Mathlatjie and Others v Mogale City Local Municipality and Others (2025/054979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 435 (6 May 2025)

Mathlatjie and Others v Mogale City Local Municipality and Others (2025/054979) [2025] ZAGPJHC 435 (6 May 2025)

The court found that the applicants, save for three families with written permission, had no lawful right to occupy the property. The evidence presented by the applicants was staged and contrived, intended to create a false impression of settled occupation. The application was an orchestrated attempt to abuse court processes for unlawful gain, timed to exploit public holidays and limited respondent resources. The applicants failed to provide confirmatory affidavits or respond to damning allegations, and did not comply with court orders to furnish details of affected individuals. The respondents acted lawfully to prevent illegal occupation and offered emergency accommodation, which was...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 435
Parties
Applicant: Paul Mathlatjie; Applicant: Mischack Mnisi; Applicant: Mpho Mutangwa; Applicant: Tshiwela Mudau; Applicant: Livhuwani Ndou; Applicant: Emelinah Ndou; Applicant: Frans Manyaka; Applicant: Salamu Gutacho; Applicant: Gloria Mbulayeni; Applicant: Maisha Londolani; Applicant: Tshegofatso Lens; Applicant: Donald Virina; Applicant: Nomkhosi Hlophe; Applicant: Thandzi Mulambule; Applicant: Pfariso Muedi; Applicant: Marcia Ramabanda; Applicant: Tendani Munyai; Applicant: Andiswa Sithole; Applicant: Ayanda Khumalo; Applicant: Joshua Phalali; Applicant: Nakisani Mashamba; Applicant: Maria Dlamini; Applicant: Mzothula Mbatha; Applicant: Kgothatso Motsei; Applicant: Mashudu Rabali; Applicant: Macelo Ndindan; Applicant: Gudani Murake; Applicant: Butshilo Mathinduni; Applicant: Tumelo Thobejani; Respondent: Mogale City Local Municipality; Respondent: Municipal Manager; Respondent: Councillor: Thizwilondi James Tapani; Respondent: Village Farm Properties (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 May 2025
Case Number
2025/054979
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Interim Order; Main Application and Contempt Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with punitive costs; contempt application dismissed.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Urgent Interdict, Land Invasion, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Abuse of Court Process, Punitive Costs
Land and Property Civil Procedure Administrative Law Spoliation Urgent Interdict Land Invasion Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Abuse of Court Process +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Mathlatjie

Applicant

Mischack Mnisi

Applicant

Mpho Mutangwa

Applicant

Tshiwela Mudau

Applicant

Livhuwani Ndou

Applicant

Emelinah Ndou

Applicant

Frans Manyaka

Applicant

Salamu Gutacho

Applicant

Gloria Mbulayeni

Applicant

Maisha Londolani

Applicant

Tshegofatso Lens

Applicant

Donald Virina

Applicant

Nomkhosi Hlophe

Applicant

Thandzi Mulambule

Applicant

Pfariso Muedi

Applicant

Marcia Ramabanda

Applicant

Tendani Munyai

Applicant

Andiswa Sithole

Applicant

Ayanda Khumalo

Applicant

Joshua Phalali

Applicant

Nakisani Mashamba

Applicant

Maria Dlamini

Applicant

Mzothula Mbatha

Applicant

Kgothatso Motsei

Applicant

Mashudu Rabali

Applicant

Macelo Ndindan

Applicant

Gudani Murake

Applicant

Butshilo Mathinduni

Applicant

Tumelo Thobejani

Applicant

Mogale City Local Municipality

Respondent

Municipal Manager

Respondent

Councillor: Thizwilondi James Tapani

Respondent

Village Farm Properties (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Interim Order; Main Application and Contempt Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were unlawfully dispossessed and entitled to spoliation relief.
  2. 2 Whether the occupation of the land was lawful or constituted an orchestrated land invasion.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants abused urgent court processes to obtain sanctioned occupation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants, save for three families with written permission, had no lawful right to occupy the property. The evidence presented by the applicants was staged and contrived, intended to create a false impression of settled occupation. The application was an orchestrated attempt to abuse court processes for unlawful gain, timed to exploit public holidays and limited respondent resources. The applicants failed to provide confirmatory affidavits or respond to damning allegations, and did not comply with court orders to furnish details of affected individuals. The respondents acted lawfully to prevent illegal occupation and offered emergency accommodation, which was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with punitive costs; contempt application dismissed.

Orders

  • The applications are dealt with as urgent under rule 6(12).
  • The interim order of Manoim J dated 18 April 2025 is set aside.