Minister of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development v Mookudi and Others (UM137/2019) [2021] ZANWHC 19 (12 July 2021)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG

CASE NO.:UM131/2019

Reportable: YES/NO

Circulate to Judges: YES/NO

Circulate to Magistrates: YES/NO

Circulate to Regional Magistrates: YES/NO

In the matter between:

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE, LAND

APPLICANT

REFORM AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

And

DALTON MOOKUDI

1ST RESPONDENT

JUSTICE SEICHOKO

2ND RESPONDENT

BISHOP MOILWE

3RD RESPONDENT

LESEGO SEBIKIRI

4TH RESPONDENT

TUMELO OLAOTSWE

5TH RESPONDENT

TSHWARO MOSHE

6TH RESPONDENT

NAMETSO SEPADILE

7TH RESPONDENT

MR MBOLEKWA

8TH RESPONDENT

THABISO NICHOLUS SEBIKIRI

9TH RESPONDENT

TLOTLEGO JAMES KOLOMANE

10TH RESPONDENT

OLEBOGENG DAVIS THEBEYATSHIPI

11TH RESPONDENT

WHITE BASIME

12TH RESPONDENT

JAMES MOKABATLHOBOLO

13TH RESPONDENT

THOMSON OLYN

14TH RESPONDENT

AOBAKWE MODISENYANE

15TH RESPONDENT

DITEKO STINKANE

16TH RESPONDENT

MR MONGWAKETSI

17TH RESPONDENT

MR KGABUNG

18TH RESPONDENT

BAKANG MATLHOMANTSHO

19TH RESPONDENT

LETSHOLO IGNETIOUS BOYISE

20TH RESPONDENT

ANY UNKNOWN PERSON WHO ARE

21ST RESPONDENT

ALREADY IN OCCUPATION OF THE

PROPERTIES AND/OR WHO INTEND TO

INVADE THE LAND IN QUESTION AND/OR

WHO ASSOCIATE THEMSELVES WITH

THE 1ST - 20TH RESPONDENTS

THE PROVINCIAL COMMISSIONER OF

22ND RESPONDENT

POLICE, NORTH WEST PROVINCE

THE STATION COMMANDER,

23RD RESPONDENT

GANYESA POLICE STATION

THE STATION COMMANDER,

24TH RESPONDENT

REIVILO POLICE STATION

THE STATION COMMANDER,

25TH RESPONDENT

VORSTERSHOOP POLICE STATION

OPPOSED MOTION

GURAJ

DATE OF HEARING

:

11 DECEMBER 2020

DATE OF JUDGMENT

:

12 JULY 2021

FOR THE APPLICANT

:

ADV H.J SCHOLTZ

FOR 111H RESPONDENT

:

ADV W.A VAN ASWEGEN

FOR 1st, 4TH - 9TH, 12TH, 13TH,

:

ADV M PHALANE

16TH, 19T'H - 20TH RESPONDENTS :

ADV M PHALANE

JUDGMENT

GURAJ.

Introduction

[1] On 13 August 2019 the Applicant lodged an urgent ex parte

application for an order in the following terms:

1.1 That the forms and services provided for in the rules of the above Honourable Court be dispensed with and that the matter be treated as an agent application in terms of the provisions of Rule 6 (12) of the

Uniform Rules of Court.

1.2 That a rule nisi be issued calling upon the respondents to furnish reasons, if any, on Thursday, 19 September 2019 at 10H00, as to why the following order should not be made final:

1.2.1 That the first to twenty-first respondents be and are hereby ordered to immediately restore the undisturbed possession of the following property to the Applicant, to wit:

1.2.1.1 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 5, PORTION 6 AND PORTION 7 AND THE REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM BRULPAN;

1.2.1.2 REMAINING EXTENT OF FARM KROMBOOM 516.

1.2.1.3 THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM VERGELEGEN 517 IN.

1.2.1.4 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 1 AND 6 (PORTION OF PORTION 1) OF THE FARM VALLBOSCHLAAGTE 444 IN.

1.2.1.5 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 4 (RAMA NO. 1) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444; REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM VAALBOSCGLAAGTE 444; PORTION FIVE OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE

444; PORTION 7, PORTION OF PORTION

4 OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE; PORTION 2 (GIBEON) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444;

REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 3 (RAMA) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444.

1.2.1.6 PORTION 2 AND 4 OF THE FARM MAMUSA 459 IN.

1.2.1.7 REMAINDER OF THE FARM BRANDYSTAKE

898 IN AND PORTION 2 AND 5 OF THE FARM WOODLANDS 415 IN.

1.2.1.8 REMAINDER OF THE FARM MELLOWWOOD 420 IN.

1.2.1.9 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 4 OF THE FARM BOOMPLAATS 643 HN.

1.2.1.10 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 2 OF BLOCK C 2ND RAILWAY GRANT NO 1 JM (KALINORA).

1.3 That the first to twenty-first respondents be interdicted from:

1.3.1 Entering the farm properties described above and from the siding on the properties and/or erecting any structures.

1.3.2 Inciting any other person to enter the farm properties.

1.3.3 Grazing any livestock or permitting any third party to graze any livestock on the farm properties.

1.3.4 Removing, cutting or damaging any existing infrastructure, trees and boundary fences.

1.4 That the respondents who graze livestock on the farm properties be ordered to remove their livestock within two days from this order.

1.5 Should the respondents not remove their livestock from the farm properties, the Sheriff with the assistance of the South African Police Services be authorized to attach, remove and deliver such livestock to the nearest animal pound.

1.6 That the first to twenty-first respondents be ordered not to interfere with the allocation process of land to third parties by the Applicant.

1.7 Should the first to twenty-first respondents fail to act in accordance with the Order, the sheriff with the assistance of the South African Police Services be authorized to take each and every step necessary to ensure compliance with this Order, and the twenty-second to twenty-fifth respondents be ordered to render all assistance required by the sheriff in the enforcement of this Order.

1.8 That prayers 1.2.1 - 1.6 and 1.7 be of interim force pending the return date herein.

1.9 The first to twenty-first respondents be ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.

[2] A Rule Nisi almost incorporating the terms of the prayers was then issued on 13 August 2019. Today is the return date after the interim order was extended several times. The matter is opposed by all the respondents except Second, Third, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Sixteenth Respondents.

Factual background

[3] The following farms which are known as:

3.1 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 5, PORTION 6 AND PORTION 7 AND THE REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM BRULPAN;

3.2 REMAINING EXTENT OF FARM KROMBOOM 516.

3.3 THE REMAINDER OF THE FARM VERGELEGEN 517 IN.

3.4 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 1 AND 6 (PORTION OF PORTION 1) OF THE FARM VALLBOSCHLAAGTE 444 IN.

3.5 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 4 (RAMA NO. 1) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444; REMAINING EXTENT OF THE FARM VAALBOSCGLAAGTE 444; PORTION FIVE OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444; PORTION 7, PORTION OF PORTION 4 OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE; PORTION 2 (GIBEON) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444; REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 3 (RAMA) OF THE FARM VAALBOSCHLAAGTE 444.

3.6 PORTION 2 AND 4 OF THE FARM MAMUSA 459 IN.

3.7 REMAINDER OF THE FARM BRANDYSTAKE 898 IN AND PORTION 2 AND 5 OF THE FARM WOODLANDS 415 IN.

3.8 REMAINDER OF THE FARM MELLOWWOOD 420 IN.

3.9 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 4 OF THE FARM BOOMPLAATS 643 HN.

3.10 REMAINING EXTENT OF PORTION 2 OF BLOCK C SECOND RAILWAY GRANT NO 1 JM (KALINORA).

are farms which are registered in the name of the Government of the Republic of South Africa and under the custodian of the Applicant.

[4] These farms have recently been purchased by the National Government from existing commercial farmers, and are administered by the Applicant. Among others, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to ensure that the aforesaid land is accordingly redistributed to qualifying emerging farmers duly approved by the Applicant. There is however a procedure which needs to be followed for a person to be allocated land. The procedure consists of the land acquired by the Applicant being advertised, inviting qualifying members of the public with the following qualifying criteria to apply:

(i) The applicant must be an African, Indian, or Coloured South African resident.

(ii) The applicant must be at least 18 years of age or older.

(iii) The applicant must have experience in livestock farming or related business management experience and relevant capital/financial requirements.

(iv) Preference will be given to subsistence and emerging farmers within the neighbouring villages.

[5] The process which is then to be followed is that an applicant must collect application forms from the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform situated at 52 Market St., Second Floor, Prime Plaza

building, Vryburg. After receipt of the applications by the Applicant (having been advertised), the District Screening and Beneficiary

Selection Committee which consists of the members of the Department of Agriculture, the Dr. Ruth Segomotsi Mompati District Municipality

and the Landbank will consider the applications and thereafter make a recommendation to the Provincial Technical Committee.

[6] At the time of the launch of this application, all the applications had been received and captured on the system. It was expected that the District Screening and Beneficiary Selection Committee would make their recommendation during the month of August 2019. Such a recommendation would be referred to the Provincial Technical

Committee, which would in turn make a recommendation to the National Land Acquisition and Allocation Control Committee for approval. Once approval has been granted by the National Land Acquisition and Allocation Control Committee, the Applicant will then have to enter into a lease agreement with the successful beneficiary. However, the presence of the first to twenty-first respondents on the state farms in question make it impossible for the Applicant to give undisturbed possession of the farms to the successful beneficiaries.

[7] This spoliation also prevents the Department Officials from doing proper asset verification on these farms. The Applicant therefore has no control over its assets on the farms and its assets can be damaged

or even stolen at any time. It recently came to the Department's attention that some individuals (the first to twenty-first respondents) have unlawfully invaded the land so advertised, have taken possession of same and are grazing their livestock on the farm properties. The majority of the premises are also locked with padlocks from unknown persons having the effect that the Applicant does not have access to certain portions of the farm.

[8] The Applicant now deals with each farm individually in order to guide the court to a better understanding in respect of the unlawful behavior of the first to twenty-first respondents. Counsel for the

Applicant, together with Mr. Kagiso Moretlwe (being a Senior Project Officer under the employment of the Applicant) attended an inspection in loco on 2 and 5 August 2019 in order to observe the current situation on the farm properties.

Farm Brulpan - Remaining extent of Portion 01 41 5 & 6 of the farm Brulpan 514 IN.

8.1 This farm has been purchased from Mr. and Mrs. Haasbroek for R24 160 000.00 and has been transferred to the name of the Government of the Republic of South Africa on 29 March 2019 as is evident from the Deed

of Transfer attached to the founding affidavit. The first to fifth respondents have invaded the aforesaid land without the consent of the Applicant. The names had been obtained by the herd boys seemingly herding the first respondent's cattle. From the photos attached to the founding affidavit as annexure RGK4, it is clear that these respondents have invaded the land with cattle and that the gate is locked with a padlock to which the Applicant does not have access. It is only fortunate that during the inspection in loco the padlock was open in order to allow the Applicant to conduct an inspection.

Farm Kromboom - remaining extent of farm Kromboom 516 and farm Vergelegen - remainder of the farm Vergelegen 517 IN

8.2 These farms have been transferred to National Government of the Republic of South Africa on 24 March 2019 with the purchase price of no less than R25 000 000.00 having been paid for the aforesaid property. During inspection in loco the gate to the farm was found to be locked with two padlocks. Fortunately, two unknown gentlemen who were on the farm agreed to unlock the gate in order for Mr. Moretlwe and Applicant's Counsel to inspect the property. On this property, cattle were found. The property also has eight center pivots worth R2 500 000.00. According to the farmworkers who opened the gate, the sixth to tenth respondents are occupying the aforesaid premises. Both of the aforesaid farms are situated within close proximity of Louwna, and are thus still situated in the North West Province.

Farm Vaalboschlaagte

8.3 This property was purchased from Mr. Aglfrich and Mr. Pieterse for the amount of R12 920 000.00. Copies of the Title Deeds are attached to the founding affidavit as annexure RGK6 and RGK7. Despite attempts

to establish exactly who is occupying the farm, the best information that was obtained is that it is the eighteenth respondent. It is however clear that other unknown individuals are occupying the property unlawfully together with the eighteenth respondent.

Farm Mamusa

8.4 This property was purchased from the Winsomevale Trust for the amount of R4 600 000.00. It is situated close to Phaphosane Village. A copy of the Title Deed is annexure RGK8 to the founding affidavit. puring

the inspection in loco access could not be obtained to the aforesaid farm, as the main gate was locked. It however became evident that this farm is occupied by the fifteenth to seventeenth respondents as information confirming the occupants had been received by Mr. Kagiso Moretlwe.

Farm Mellowood, Brandystake and Woodlands

8.5 All of these farms are adjacent to each other, situated between Ganyesa and Morokweng villages. These farms were purchased from various commercial farmers by the applicant as is evident from WinDeed searchers being annexure RGK9 to the founding papers. Cattle were found on these farms. Furthermore, it is important to note that there is a servitude tower in favor of the MTN cell phone service provider on the property, and MTN is likewise denied access and cannot maintain the aforesaid tower.

Farm Boomplaats

8.6 This farm is situated at Lykso within the geographical area of the Greater Taung Local Municipality and has been invaded by the nineteenth respondent. Documentary proof of ownership in favor of the Applicant is annexure GRK11 to the founding affidavit. The scenario is the same as on the aforesaid farms.

Remaining extent of Portion 2 of Block C Second Railwork Ground No. 1 Kalinora

8.7 Due to the urgency of this matter a Title Deed could not be obtained timeously. This farm is situated at Vorstershoop within the geographical area of the Kagisano Molopo Local Municipality and the scenario is the same as on the previous farms.

[9] On 13 August 2014 the Court granted a rule nisi in terms of the provisions of the Notice of Motion. Upon perusal of the application by the Applicant, it became clear that the founding

affidavit did not explain in a satisfactory fashion the involvement of the eleventh to fourteenth and twentieth respondents in the matter. This happened

to be an oversight on the part of the Applicant due to the extreme urgency of the matter, as well as the numerous respondents involved.

The Applicant then took. liberty to explain same in paragraph 9.1 to 9.3 of this judgment.

Eleventh respondent

9.1 The eleventh respondent is part of the unlawful invaders of the farm Kromboom as explained in paragraph 10 of the founding affidavit (para 8.2 of this judgment).

Twelfth to fourteenth respondents

9.2 These respondents are in unlawful occupation of the farms Mellowood, Brandystake and Woodlands as explained in paragraph 13 of the founding papers (para 8.5 of this judgment). As mentioned earlier, due to a pure oversight the names of these respondents had not been included where these farms had been discussed in the founding papers.

Twentieth respondent

9.3 The twentieth respondent is in unlawful occupation of the farm known as Kalinora as discussed in paragraph 15 of the founding papers. The Applicant introduced the information in paragraph 9.1 to 9.3 of this judgment through a supplementary affidavit. The Applicant

submitted that the supplementary affidavit could not be to the prejudice of the respondents as it would be served simultaneously

with the rule nisi and the application.

The respondents' case

[10] Two opposing affidavits have been filed. The first affidavit is in respect of a group of respondents to wit: first, fourth to eighth, eleventh, nineteenth and twentieth respondents. The deponent to the answering affidavit in this group is the fourth respondent. The second opposing affidavit has been deposed to by the eleventh respondent. I now set out the version of the respondents.

[11] The opposing respondents are all emerging farmers from villages spread throughout the North West Province. Many of them only met in May 2019, and in some instances only met after they were all served with the Court Order of 13 August 2019. As will become apparent from the section dealing with the respective farms later in this judgment, the separate occupations of the farms by the various opposing respondents started in April 2019, and the last of the occupations took place in July 2019 by the nineteenth respondent. These occupations were not so coordinated, all the individual respondents have their own story to tell, even though some of the occupations and occupants convecged at some point. The occupations were brought about

by drought challenges that threatened the sustainability of the opposing respondents ' livestock, coupled with a common experience of many unfulfilled promises by the Applicant's officials over many years.

[12] It is also important to highlight that the opposing respondents in respect of farms Brulpan, Kromboom, Vergelegen, Boomplaats, Vaalboschlaagte and Mamusa initially occupied only specified camps within the respective farms as agreed with other lawful

occupants they had found occupying those farms. This is important to distinguish because it points among others things the Applicant's

misleading version that seeks to suggest that the opposing respondents took over the entire farms. The truth is that by their arrangement with the lawful occupants they had found at these farms the opposing respondents were given access to sections of the farms (camps).

[13] Following the early occupation in April 2019 and early May 2019, a meeting was held at Brulpan one 31 May 2019 (Brulpan Meeting). A copy of the unsigned minutes of the meeting is attached as annexure LVS1 to the opposing affidavit. This meeting is significant for a number of reasons:

13.1 The sixth respondent was tasked with scribing minutes of the meeting, which he did, and subsequently delivered a copy at the district office of the Applicant;

13.2 The meeting was attended by occupants of farms: Brulpan, Kromboom and Vergelegen, Applicant's officials led by the deponent to Applicant's founding affidavit, (Keothaile) and members of the South African Police Service from Ganyesa Police Station;

13.3 Some of the key discussion points at the meeting included concerns regarding lack of confidence in the Applicant's district office, alleged corruption in farm allocations, the condition of the occupied farms, the pending land allocation process that had been advertised by the Applicant at the beginning of May 2019 in the Stellalanders newspaper;

13.4 The respondents believe the most important aspect of this meeting is that one of the resolutions gave the occupants of the three farms, Brulpan, Kromboom and Vergelegen interim caretaker-ship of the farms. This is because the initial occupants' leases were about to expire, and the Applicant's officials saw this as a way to safeguard against illegal occupation.

[14] Following the Brulpan meeting, the fourth respondent came to know that the Applicant's officials held similar meetings with emerging farmers who occupy other farms. The applicant fails in its founding affidavit to bring this significant meeting to the court's attention. The fourth respondent believes this omission was deliberate, and reflective of an Applicant that sought to mislead the court into believing that its property rights were being unlawfully violated, when the truth was that no such violation occurred. A material omission such as this in an ex parte application constitutes sufficient basis for the court to decline the applicant the relief it seeks. The deponent to the founding affidavit (Keothaile) also fails to divulge to the court that he had telephone conversations with the fourth respondent shortly after their occupation of the respective farms, and that he had asked for their assurance that no additional occupants would be allowed on the farms.

[15] The experience of the opposing respondents tell of gross irregularities in the manner the Applicant has gone about allocating land. A significant number of the farms in and surrounding the villages where the opposing respondents reside are still operated by white farmers. Many of the opposing respondents have made numerous unsuccessful applications for agricultural land allocation. They do not know what are the reasons for their applications not being successful. There are many examples of persons who are not farmers and yet have been allocated land under the Applicant's agricultural transformation initiative. Issues pertaining to discrepancies in adjudication and allocation of land were discussed at meetings between the Applicant's officials and concerned emerging farmers. The meetings were held on 31 July 2019 (Brulpan Meeting discussed in detail above) and 30 in August. In particular, the farmers raised the concern regarding district officials playing a part in the Beneficiary Selection Committee due to perceived conflict of interest and allegations of corruption.

[16] It is noteworthy that on 2 August 2019, the first date of the inspections in loco by the Department officials and Applicant's Counsel, the MEG for Agriculture in the North West Province hosted a public engagement meeting with emerging farmers at the Chamber of Kagisano Molopo Local Municipality. Some of the opposing respondents attended this MEG meeting. Some of the opposing respondents received calls while they were at this meeting and they had to arrange for the Department official and Applicant's Counsel to gain access to the respective farms. All the opposing respondents fully cooperated with the delegation.

Farm Brulpan - remaining extent of portion 01 4, 5 & 6 of the farm Brulpan 514 IN

[17] It is untrue that the first to fifth respondents invaded the aforesaid land and are now using padlocks to deny the applicant access to the farm. The truth is that by verbal agreement between Annie De Wet together with Mr. Sadan Sekate, Mr Sekate was employed by the previous owners of the farm. De Wet was the farmer in possession and occupation of the farm during May 2019 and was leasing the farm from the previous owner. De Wet gave respondent access to occupy and use some of the unutilized camps on the farm.

[18] The Applicant tries to make issue of the fact that the farm gates were found with a padlock on them. The padlocking of farm gates is not at all unusual in the farming community. The Applicant's intimation that the padlocking meant it had no access is not true. The padlocks are a safety measure. There are many instances of departmental officials who have visited the farm unannounced, and once they identified themselves, they were given access to the farm. It is worth pausing to point out that the Applicant does not present any testimony of an occasion when any of its officials were denied access to the farm. Therefore, the intimation sought to be gained from the padlocks allegation must be dismissed as pure conjuncture.

[19] The first to fifth respondents' occupation of this farm tells of a story of an emerging farmer who approached the more established farmer who was occupying the farm to assist them by availing grazing land for their livestock. It is not in any way a story of an invasion and unlawful occupation as the Applicant made out to this court. What transpired is the following: The first to fifth respondents first visited the farm on 5 May 2019 where they met with Annie De Wet (De Wet). Initially they thought De Wet was the owner of the farm. As their conversation continued, De Wet shared with them that his father

had leased the farm for over 20 years from the Haasbroeks. He was also leasing the farm, but it was unclear when his lease would come to an end.

[20] The first and fifth respondents informed De Wet that they were looking for grazing land for their cattle because the communal land they were using had run out of grazing land. De Wet asked them whether they had spoken to two departmental officials, Moretlwe and Samolapo, and they indicated that they had not as yet, but they needed grazing land in the meantime. The conversation culminated in De Wet conceding to the first and fifth respondents that the farm was big enough to accommodate them. Another farmer by the name of Wiekus was also occupying a portion of the farm at that time amounting to 600ha, but the respondents do not know how and from whom he leased his portion. Wiekus was about to vacate the farm around that time. As

a result, the fifth respondent even purchased some of Wiekus' livestock.

[21] The meeting with De Wet culminated in an agreement that the first to fifth respondents can move their cattle onto the farm to take occupation of the 600ha Wiekus was vacating, De Wet would continue occupying the 900ha he was already occupying. On 6 May 2019, the fourth respondent together with the first and fifth respondents moved their cattle onto the farm. De Wet had approximately 300 cattle and he remained on the 900ha that he was already occupying.

[22] There was also another farmer, Badan Sekati (Sekati). Sekati is an old man who used to work for the erstwhile owners of the farm, the Haasbroeks. He has approximately 60 cattle and occupies one of the camps on the farm, some 400ha. On the morning of 13 May 2019, departmental officials, Moretlwe and Samolapo came to the farm unannounced. They met with the third and fifth respondents and they wanted to know why they (the occupants) were on the farm. The fifth respondent informed them that the communal grazing land had run out of grass and government had not provided them with drought relief aid.

[23] The officials requested that the occupants should not bring more than one hundred cattle onto the farm as that would result in overgrazing, and they agreed. The officials further indicated that a meeting that would include their superior, Keothaile (the deponent to the Applicant's founding affidavit) would be arranged in due course. The suggested meeting eventually took place. The officials also asked how the occupants intended core existing with the other occupants on the farm, De Wet and Sekati. The fifth respondent informed them that there is an arrangement in place already as discussed with De Wet, and that De Wet had in fact committed to taking responsibility for electricity.

[24] It is thus evident that the resultant occupation of portions of this farm by the first to fifth respondents did not emanate from any unlawful behavior on the part of any of the respondents. De Wet, a person who to their knowledge was in lawful possession of the farm at the time, granted them access and occupation of the farm. Officials of the department came and met with them and confirmed understanding their plight and their need to find suitable grazing land. They

continue to exist peacefully with De Wet and Sekati, who are still in occupation of the respective portions of the farm.

[25] The occupant of these farms are the sixth to the eleventh respondents. This is how these respondents became the occupants of these farms: The fourth respondent met the sixth to eleventh respondent around 17 May 2019 when he was called to a meeting at the farm by Stephanus Niemann, the erstwhile owner of the farm. He (fourth respondent) had given Stephanus Niemann his contact details when he first met him previously while visiting his farms. When he arrived at the meeting, he found Stephanus Niemann with several other emerging farmers, including the sixth to eleventh respondents. Other emerging farmers present had an interest in assessing the farms with a view to deciding whether to express interest in response to the Applicant's recent public invitation for expression of interest to lease farms.

[26] The emerging farmers appointed the fourth respondent as the primary contact person and coordinator so as to avoid miscommunication and confusion. Stephanus Niemann proposed to the emerging farmers that he could avail three camps for immediate occupation and use while they awaited the Applicant's process of farm allocations. He further offered to assist with mentoring on his farming methods. Stephanus Niemann further gave them a tour of the farms. Needless to say, the emerging farmers gladly welcomed his proposal.

[27] On this basis, the emerging farmers who were present agreed among themselves that the number of occupants for the three camps must be limited to six farmers. The sixth to eleventh respondents thus occupied the three camps by agreement among the emerging farmers. Niemann was present when the emerging farmers agreed on who would occupy which camp. Due to the fact that Stephanus Niemann was still occupying the house located on farm Kromboom, it was agreed that the new occupants would all initially utilize the camps at farm Vergelegen.

[28] Later the same day, and over the next two days, the sixth to eleventh respondents started moving livestock into Vergelegen. The following day while they were all at the farm (except Stephanus Niemann who was not present), Goitseone Keothaile (Keothaile), the deponent to Applicant's founding affidavit, called the sixth respondent asking what was happening at the farm. The sixth respondent gave the fourth respondent the phone as he had been appointed the contact person for the emerging farmers. After explaining to Keothaile what was going on at the farm, he indicated that he would arrange a visit to the farm soon, and he requested that the emerging farmers must ensure that there are no other persons added to the occupants of the farms. The

fourth respondent indicated that we would make gate-locking arrangements with Stephanus Niemann.

[29] A few days later, an official from the Applicant's district office by the name Samolapo called the fifth respondent to arrange for a meeting. The reason for this was because a few days earlier, the same district official had visited the farm Brulpan, where the fifth respondent was one of the occupants. The fifth respondent undertook to coordinate the attendance of occupants from other farms at the proposed meeting that would take place on 31 May 2019 at Brulpan. Applicant failed to bring this significant meeting to the court's attention, because to do so would have also necessitated some disclosure of how things unfolded at the meeting and what decisions if any were taken at such meeting.

[30] The above facts clearly demonstrate two significant things that should be of interest to this Court. Firstly, that the sixth to eleventh respondents negotiated and agreed to the occupation of the farms with persons who were in possession of the farms at the time. They did not at any point commit any unlawful act when they took and during the occupation of the farms. Secondly, that the Applicant was not in possession of the farms when the sixth to eleventh respondents took occupation of the farms.

[31] This farm is occupied by Mrs Kegakilwe. She was not cited in the papers by name but is opposing this application as part of the twenty-first respondent. The farm was occupied by Mr. Pieterse, the previous owner. Mr Pieterse agreed to share the farm with Mrs. Kegakilwe. Mr Pieterse has since vacated the farm voluntarily. Mrs Kegakilwe has been taking care of the farm very well and previously cooperated fully with the officials of the Department. The Applicant's allegation that the occupants of this farm are unknown to it is untruthful. The occupants of the farm are members of a cooporative known as Tlang Ka Phulo Farming and Projects (Cooperative).

[32] Since the members of the cooperative took occupation of the farm, officials from the department's district office have visited the farm. In particular, officials who conduct asset verification have visited the farm, and they had to rely on the occupants to point out the whereabouts of equipment on the farm. It is noteworthy that these department officials were given access to the farm. The fact that padlocks are used to lock the gates did not unduly impede the access. The cooperative has a long history with the Department dating back to 2012, and has been in regular contact with various officials from the Department, including engagement with Keothaile, the deponent to the Applicant's founding affidavit and the MEC for Agriculture in the North West Province.

[33] In the main, the Cooperative's interactions with the Department centered around a need by the Cooperative to access suitable grazing land for their cattle. Before taking occupation of the farm, the Cooperative informed the MEC during the meeting of 2 August 2019 that issues that had been unresolved for a lengthy period be resolved, failing which the Cooperative would take steps to occupy suitable land.

[34] On 7 April 2019 members of the Cooperative visited the farm and met with the erstwhile owner, Aglfrich who showed them around the farm, including showing them how some of the farm equipment such as water pumps work. Although Aglfrich still occupied the house on the farm, there was no farming activity on the farm at that time. At this meeting, it was agreed that the members of the community could bring in their livestock onto the farm. It was also agreed that Aglfrich would pump water to the camps occupied by the Cooperative, and the Cooperative would be liable for the costs thereof.

[35] Pursuant to the meeting with Aglfrich, members of the Cooperative each contributed one cattle and moved in 20 cattle onto the farm. At the end of April 2019, Aglfrich invoiced the Cooperative R7 000.00 for water supply into their camp. Additional cattle were brought onto the farm over a period of a few weeks. It is thus evident that the occupants of this farm did not commit any unlawful act in pursuit of the occupation of the farm. They took occupation of the farm following discussions with the person that was the lawful possessor of the farm at that time, Aglfrich.

[36] The farm is occupied by the fifteenth to the seventeenth respondents, and Kagiso Moretlwe knew of these respondents. It is specifically denied that during the inspection in loco access to the farm could not be obtained and this amounted to spoliation. This is so because:

36.1 Kagiso Moretlwe held the fifteenth respondent's contact details, and had previously communicated with the fifteenth respondent;

36.2 On 2 August 2019 the day of the inspection in loco, emerging farmers had a meeting with the MEC for Agriculture, and as such it should be reasonably expected that the occupants of the farm would have been in attendance at such meeting, as in fact they were;

36.3 The fact that a farm gate is found locked does not in any way constitute spoliation. Farm gates are locked as a matter of practice;

36.4 Around the end of April 2019 the fifteenth respondent approached a farmer by the name of Theo who was the occupant of the farm at that time. The fifteenth respondent indicated his plight regarding his cattle that were starved of grazing land;

36.5 Theo indicated that he had a lease agreement with Balebetse Sekgapho, the District Manager which expires in December 2019, and he requested that the fifteenth respondent should give him a day or so to figure out how the situation can be resolved. A day later, Theo called the fifteenth respondent to inform him that he had moved his cattle out of Mamusa, and that the fifteenth respondent can move his cattle into the farm. Later that same day the fifteenth respondent started moving his cattle onto the farm;

36.6 In July, officials from asset verification came to the firm to do asset verification. They were granted access onto the farm.

Farm Mellowood, Brandstake and Woodlands

[37] This farm is occupied by the twelfth to fourteenth respondents. They found Harry Steenkamp on the farm. He was leasing the farm from the previous owner. He agreed to share the farm with the twelfth and fourteenth respondents. In respect of the twelfth respondent; his story is of a sad tale characterized by what can only be described as incompetence and dishonesty on the part of the Applicant's officials, in particular Keothaile, the deponent to Applicant's founding affidavit.

[38] The twelfth respondent has over a period of five years knocked on as many doors as there would be for someone to listen to his cries, including various incumbents of the Applicant's office, the Presidency of South Africa, the Public Protector to name a few. Sadly, the twelfth respondent still does not have a farm allocated to him despite written undertakings since 2016 that his matter is receiving priority. Keothaile himself made some of the undertakings.

[39] The twelfth respondent took occupation of the farm around May 2019 following arrangements made with the then lawful occupier and erstwhile owner of the farm. Most significantly, the twelfth respondent also met with Keothaile at his Mahikeng Office where Keothaile agreed that the twelfth respondent could take occupation of the farm on a caretaker basis pending the finalization of the current land allocation process. In what was an unpleasant surprise turn, on 31 July 2019, Keothaile went to the farm and demanded that the twelfth respondent should vacate the farm, this because the twelfth respondent was being used by his nephew White, and that his blindness disqualifies him from any allocation. It is difficult to comprehend how the twelfth respondent's blindness disqualifies him for land allocation, especially in circumstances where his condition had been disclosed since he started his interactions with the Applicant's offices. The allegation that MTN has been denied access to the farm is untrue, and in any event hearsay.

[40] The nineteenth respondent did not invade the farm as the Applicant alleges. The events leading to the nineteenth respondent's occupation of the farm are as follows:

40.1 On 28 June 2019, the nineteenth respondent visited the farm for the first time and there by coincidence, he met a neighbouring farmer by the name of Christo whose family used to own the farm Boomplaats some time ago.

40.2 A shepherd on the farm gave the nineteenth respondent and Christo access to the farm, and he gave the nineteenth respondent the contact details of the farmer who was in lawful possession of the farm at the time, Freddie Markram (Freddie).

40.3 The nineteenth respondent called Freddie on the phone and discussed his need for grazing space for his cattle and that he would make arrangements to move his cattle into one of the camps on the farm.

40.4 On 4 July 2019, the nineteenth respondent moved some of his cattle onto the farm. Freddie was not present at the time, but he had indicated to nineteenth respondent that he would only be at the farm on 8 July 2019. Freddie requested that nineteenth respondent must ensure that he does not disturb his (Freddie's) cattle while moving his (cattle) onto the farm.

40.5 On 8 July 2019, nineteenth respondent met with Freddie and they agreed that they could farm together as long as they did not mix up their respective livestock. Freddie further indicated to nineteenth respondent that he would be vacating the farm on the last day in August. It is unclear whether or not Freddie had a lease, but suffice to say that he had been in possession of the farm when the nineteenth respondent arrived on it.

40.6 Later that same day, that is 8 July 2019, the nineteenth respondent received a call from Samolapo from the applicant's district office and he requested that the nineteenth respondent must not allow other farmers to come onto the farm because it would result in overgrazing.

40.7 On 26 July 2019, Freddie handed the nineteenth respondent a set of keys for one of the houses on the farm after the nineteenth respondent had complained to him that the traveling to and from the farm on a daily basis was strenuous. Other persons including Freddie's shepherd occupied the second house.

40.8 At the end of August 2019 Freddie did not vacate as he had earlier indicated and when the nineteenth respondent spoke to him sometime in early September, Freddie indicated that the Applicant's district office had requested him to stay on the

farm, and to date Freddie and the nineteenth respondent continued to coexist peacefully on the farm.

[41] It is evident from the above facts that the nineteenth respondent did not conduct himself in any manner that is unlawful when he took occupation of the farm. Freddie was the person apparently in lawful possession at the time of the nineteenth respondent's arrival on the farm.

Remaining extent portion 2 of Block C Second Railway Ground No. 1 Kalinora

[42] The twentieth respondent is the occupant of this farm, and his occupation of the farm came as follows:

42.1 The twentieth respondent went to the farm around the first week in August where he met the person in lawful possession at the time by the name of Scholtz. Although the twentieth respondent is uncertain, it would appear from the electricity statement of the farm that Scholtz might at some point had been the owner of the farm. Arrangements were made to meet the following day, and Scholtz handed the twentieth respondent keys to the farmhouse.

42.2 A week after the twentieth respondent had taken occupation, Scholtz also brought a water pump engine into the farm, and some 30 minutes later a strange occurrence of an official from the department's district office by the name of Kagiso

Moretlwe transpired. He came to fetch the same water pump engine and he took it to the adjacent farm called Krieswiel, which is another farm owned by the Applicant. Kagiso said he had been instructed by his superior Miss Balebetse Sekgabo to relocate the equipment. However, in a subsequent meeting between the twentieth respondent and Miss Balebetse Sekgabo, she denied ever instructing Kagiso to remove the equipment.

42.3

A few days later asset verification officials from the department phoned the twentieth respondent and indicated that they would be visiting the farm to do asset verification, and indeed they visited the farm. The twentieth respondent pointed to them where the water pump engine was and indicated to them that he needed to take the water pump engine back to the farmhouse because on the asset register it shows the asset is located at Kalinora. The twentieth respondent proceeded to return the equipment to Kalinora.

42.4 Eskom recently indicated to the twentieth respondent that they intend disconnecting electricity supply to the farm because the account was in areas. The twentieth respondent duly paid an amount R8 786.30 to Eskom.

[43] On 3 September 2019, the twentieth respondent was interviewed by the Beneficiary Selection Committee for his application in respect of Krombbom farm. On 1 September 2019, the delegation from the department visited Kalinora farm to verify the number of the livestock owned by the twentieth respondent.

[44] The eleventh respondent filed a separate answering affidavit. His version also is that he occupies the remaining extent of farm Kromboom 516 and the remainder of farm Vergeleegen 517 with permission of the then possessor of the farm and further that at the Brulpan meeting he was authorized by officials of the applicant to continue using the farm as a caretaker. From here up to paragraph 48 of this judgment is the version of the eleventh respondent.

[45] The eleventh respondent was part of a larger group of disgruntled livestock farmers who met with representatives from the Applicant and the South African Police Services at the farm Brulpan on 31 May 2019.

45.1 The farmers who attended the meeting were:

(a) Eleventh respondent;

(b) Mr. TJ Kolomane (the tenth respondent);

(c) Mr. TN Sibikiri;

(d) Mr. Dalton Mookudi;

(e) Mr. Justice Seichoko (the second respondent);

(f) Mr. Bishop Moliwe (the third respondent);

(g) Mr. Lesego Sibikiri (the fourth respondent);

(h) Mr. Tumelo Olaotswe (the fifth respondent);

(i) Mr. Tshwaro Moshe (the sixth respondent);

collectively referred to as "the attendees"

45.2 The Applicant was represented by (a) Mr. Richard Goitseone Keothaile; (b) the Chief Director of Provincial Shared Services, Mr Kagiso Moretlwe, (c) the Project Officer employed by the Applicant and (d) one Mr Samolapo, also employed by the Applicant at its Vryburg National Office.

45.3 The South African Police Services was represented by (a) Lieut. Col. Batshimki, (b) the Station Commander of the Ganyesa Police Station and (c) Constable Mabologa of the Ganyesa Police Station. The meeting was convened and chaired by Mr. Keothaile and had a binary purpose. First, to get an understanding why the attendees were so disgruntled with the manner in which the Proactive Land Acquisition Strategy (PLAS) was administered in their region. Second, to address the Applicant's concern that a number of farmers, which included the eleventh respondent and the attendees, had taken occupation of certain farms acquired by the state for allocation in terms of the PLAS.

[46] They essentially explained to Mr. Keothaile that:

- There were widespread rumours of corruption that marred the land distribution process under the PLAS in the particular area;

- It was an open secret that officials tasked with the application process

under the PLAS where accepting bribes from some applicants in return for preferential treatment;

In the course of ventilating their discontent with what was happening, an agreement was struck with the then owner of some of the farms to occupy and use designated portions of the farms.

[47] Having heard the attendees' version, Mr Keothaile was sympathetic to their cause and ended up giving them permission to occupy the farms they were already on subject thereto that in the meantime they applied for allocation of the land under the PLAS and did not allow any additional people to take occupation of the farms. At that point, the eleventh respondent was occupying Kromboom and Vergelegen for purposes of cattle farming. It was resolved at the meeting that:

(a) The attendees were given "caretaker-ship" of the farms;

(b) They had to ensure that they applied under PLAS to be allocated the farms that they were occupying;

(c) They should form cooperatives and/or companies and use them as the vehicle to apply under PLAS;

(d) They had to ensure that the state property was preserved and protected;

(e) Mr Keothaile would discuss the matter with National Office and impress upon them the need to appoint an independent committee to shortlist and adjudicate their applications;

(f) Sufficient reasons would be provided for any decision taken in the

adjudication process including unsuccessful applicants who were not shortlisted;

(g) They would use and enjoy the occupation of the farms until the adjudication process was completed;

(h) In the event that a particular application under the PLAS was not successful, such farmers would be given reasons and reasonable time to vacate the farms in the event that they wish to challenge the decision.

[48] Annexure ODT1 to the answering affidavit is a copy of the minutes of the meeting taken by Mr. Tshwaro Moshe. These minutes are an accurate memorial of the meeting. Mr Moshe provided the Applicant's Vryburg Office with a copy of the minutes during June 2019, and they accepted it without objection as to their accuracy. Pursuant to the aforesaid meeting, on 11 June 2019, the eleventh respondent submitted an application to the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform in Vryburg on behalf of Temo Thuo Ke Se Garona (Pty) Ltd for the lease of Vergelegen and Kromboom. The company was registered with the eleventh respondent and a number of the respondents as directors specifically in view of the advice given to them by Mr. Keothaile .

Legal principles

[49] In order to succeed in an application for a spoliation order the applicant must allege and prove that it was in peaceful and undisturbed possession and that it was unlawfully deprived of such

Possession[1]. In Matsipe v SA1 Group Pty Ltd[2], the Court stated that:

"I am satisfied that that amounted to self-help because the applicant did not consent to the respondent retaining the keys of the motor vehicle. See in this regard Stocks Housing (Cape Pty Ltd) vs Chief Executive Director, Department of Education and Cultural Services and Others 1996 (4) SA 231 at 240B-C where the court said:

"The element of unlawfulness of the dispossession which must be shown in order to claim a spoliation order relates to the manner in which the dispossession took place, not to the alleged title or right

of the spoliator to claim possession. The cardinal enquiry is whether the person in possession was deprived thereof without his acquiescence and consent. Spoliation may take place in numerous unlawful ways. It may be because it was by force or by stealth or by theft ..."

In Ivanov v North West Gambling Board[3], the SCA reaffirmed the position in our law when it held that:

"Van Blerk JA in Yeko v Qanal 7 outlined the requisites for the remedy and stated: the very essence of the remedy against spoliation is that the possession enjoyed by the party who asks for the spoliation order must be established. As has so often been said by our Courts the possession which must be proved is not possession in the juridical sense; it may be enough if the holding by the applicant was with the intention of securing some benefit for himself. In order to obtain a spoliation order the onus is on the applicant to prove the required possession, and that he was unlawfully deprived of such possession. "

[50] Nowhere in its papers does the applicant allege that it was ever in possession of any of these farms. In an attempt to prove possession of the said farms the applicant submitted that it was the owner of the farms and that the respondents took occupation of the farms without its consent. It is trite law that the right of ownership is irrelevant when considering an application for a Mandament van spolie[4].

[51] Our law recognizes possession in relation to the spoliation remedy as either quasi-possession of physical possession. The former being possession in respect of incorporeal property whilst the latter is in respect of corporeal property[5].

[52] Once the court has found that the applicant failed to prove that it was in possession of the land, it becomes unnecessary to deal with the second element of spoliation being "unlawful dispossession". On that basis, the spoliation application is doomed for failure. The matter does not end there however. In its prayers in the Notice of

Motion, the Applicant has applied for an interdict against all the respondents to restrain them from; inter alia, residing on the farms and/or grazing their livestock on the land. I now consider the latter application (for an interdict).

[53] In order to succeed in an application for a final interdict the Applicant has to prove:

(a) A clear right;

(b) A well-grounded apprehension of irrepairable harm if the relief sought is not granted;

(c) A balance of convenience; and

(d) Absence of any other satisfactory remedy.

[54] All these farms have been purchased by the government and the ownership on the properties has been transferred to the government. The Applicant, as a state department of the Republic of South Africa, has a clear right over these farms. The purpose of purchasing the land was to lease it out to deserving farmers. Each applicant or interested person has to be allocated a farm after a rigorous process of selection. The respondents admit that none of them holds any lease agreement with the government over these farms. They are therefore grazing their livestock and utilizing the land for their benefit free of charge. They refuse to vacate the properties. They are hostile as against the Applicant's officials. Some of them have threatened that they would only leave the land when they are in coffins. In the meantime, the Applicant has already entered into lease agreements

with other farmers over the same properties. These farmers should have taken occupation of these farms some two years ago. These

lessees have been waiting rather too long to take occupation of their respective farms but the respondents are not prepared to move out of the land. It becomes imperative therefore that they have to be moved forcefully. Every day that passes whilst these farms are occupied by the respondents, the Applicant suffers loss; it does not receive any rental. Yet government spent millions of rands to acquire the properties.

[55] The respondents allege that they occupied the farms with permission; first from the previous farms owners or occupants and secondly from the Applicant. Almost all previous owners of these farms have filed confirmatory affidavits to the Applicant's replying affidavit. They deny that they ever gave any of the respondents permission to occupy or to graze their livestock on the land. Therefore, the respondents were dishonest to Court when they said they got permission from the previous owners or occupants of the land. In relation to the second permission to occupy and graze livestock on the farms the respondents

point a finger at the deponent to the founding affidavit (Mr Keothaile). The latter vehemently denies that he or any official of

his department was part of the Brulpan meeting of 31 May 2019 where respondents were given "caretaker" permission to utilize the farms. The minutes which the respondents alleged reflect the attendance and deliberations in that meeting have been disavowed by Mr. Keothaile. He denies that these minutes reflect the truth. In my view, if there was such a meeting the minutes would have been taken by an official of the department. In casu, this was not the case. The minutes have not been signed by anyone. The respondents have already shown that they are not faithful to this court in relation to the first permission to occupy the farms. This court therefore finds that no representative of the Applicant attended the Brulpan meeting.

Urgency

[56] The respondents' counsel argued that the matter was not urgent. It is important to note that the rule nisi was issued on 13 August 2019 but the application was finally heard on 11 December 2020 i.e .after a lapse of about 17 months. Under these circumstances the issue of agency is moot. See in this regard the remarks by Flemming Jin Amey case [6]:

"The Court granted the order ex parte, being then convinced that there are sufficient reasons of urgency. I have serious reservations on the question whether that should not be seen as a simple question of

exercise of the discretion of the Court, the weighing done by this Court according to the information which is then given before the Court. If on what is then available it was a sustainable decision to decide that the matter is urgent, that an immediate order is justified, this Court should not as it were sit on appeal on that decision. The court frequently has the situation that according to what is before it there is sufficient urgency, but on the return date, when there is more information, such further information is relied upon by counsel to submit that there was no urgency initially and counsel then insists on arguing that there had been no urgency. I think generally speaking that it is a misplaced approach. On the question of urgency, the court deals with a distinct question which is assessed on what is before it at the time. Subject to exceptional cases of breach of ex parte duties and similar principles being arguable, the court is not bound or required to reassess the view on agency which led to an order in the first place, except to decide about issues of costs or postponement. "

[57] I have already stated earlier that the eleventh respondent filed his own answering affidavit. The fourth respondent also filed an answering affidavit on his own behalf and also on behalf of the first, fifth, sixth, seventh, twelfth, fifteenth, nineteenth, twentieth respondent and Mrs. Kegakilwe, the latter is part of the twenty first respondent. The following respondents did not file any opposing affidavit: eighth, ninth, tenth, thirteenth, fourteenth, sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth. The version of the Applicant against the latter group of respondents has not been challenged.

Order

[58] Consequently the following order is made:

58.1. The first to twenty-first respondents are interdicted from:

58.1.1 Residing on the said farms and/or erecting any structures thereon;

58.1.2 Inciting any other person to enter the farm properties;

58.1.3 Grazing any livestock or permitting any third party to graze any livestock on the farms;

58.1.4 Removing, cutting or. damaging any existing infrastructure, trees and boundary fences;

58.1.5 Interfering with the allocation process of land to third parties by the applicant;

58.2. The respondents who graze livestock on the farm properties are ordered to remove their livestock within two weeks from the date of this order;

58.3. Should the respondents not remove the livestock from the said farms, the Sheriff with the assistance of the South African Police Services are authorized to attach, remove and deliver such livestock to the nearest animal pound within five days from the expiry of the period in paragraph 2 of this order;

58.4. Should the first to twenty-first respondents fail to act in accordance with this order, the Sheriff with the assistance of the South African police Services are authorized to take every step which is necessary to ensure compliance with this order;

58.5. The twenty-second to twenty-fifth respondents are ordered to render all necessary assistance required by the Sheriff in the enforcement of this order;

58.6. Paragraph 2.1 to 2.1.10 of the rule nisi (i.e. the spoliation order) are discharged;

58.7. The respondents who opposed this application are ordered to pay the costs, jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be absolved.

SAMKELO GURA

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

NORTH WEST DIVISION: MAHIKENG

ATTORNEYS

For the Applicant: STATE ATTORNEY OFFICE

First Floor, East Gallery Mega City Complex

Cnr Sekame Road & Dr. James Moroka Drive MMABATHO

2735

Tel: 018 384 0161 / 0269

Email: ONdabeni@justice.gov.za

Ref: 1013/19/P9

For 10th Respondent: VDN ATTORNEYS

c/o Nienaber & Wissing Attorneys 10 TiIlard Street

MAHIKENG 2745

Tel: 018 381 2924

Email: charl@nwatt.co.za

Ref: BN7344

For 11th Respondent: SCHOEMAN STEYN INC.

c/o Labuschagne Attorneys 19 Constantia Drive Riviera Park

Tel: 018 381 6828

Email: geyerlabuschagne@gmail.com

Ref: GGL/BVNNK0498

For Other Respondents: MOTSHABI & ASSOCIATES INC.

No. 12 Havenga Street MAHIKENG

2745

Tel: 018 381 8187 / 8909

Email: pvmotshabi@gmail.com

Ref: Mr Motshabi / 0741/CIV

[1] Kgosana v Otto 1991 (2) SA 113 (WC).

[2] Case 34618/17 Gauteng Division, 2 June 2017 at para 22.2.

[3] Ivanov v North West Gambling Board (312/2011) [2012] ZASCA 92 (31 May 2012) at para 23.

[4] Street Pole Ads Durban v Ethekwini Municipality (06/07) [2008] ZASCA 33 (28 March 2008) at para 15.

[5] Van Rhyn and Others NNO v Fleur-baix Farm (Pty) Ltd 2013 (5) SA 521 (WCC).

[6] Small Business Development Corporation v Amey 1989 (4) SA 890A-D.