Mokoene and Another v Banda and Others (2025/048842) [2025] ZAGPJHC 413 (23 April 2025)

Mokoene and Another v Banda and Others (2025/048842) [2025] ZAGPJHC 413 (23 April 2025)

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right to the property based on historical permits and family allocation records. The process followed by the Department of Human Settlement and the Council in registering the property in the first respondent's name was procedurally flawed, as no proper inquiry was conducted as required by the Conversion Act and ULTRA. The cession of rights by the first respondent's father was incompetent, as he held no rights capable of cession. The applicants demonstrated urgency and potential irreparable harm if the property were transferred or sold. The requirements for an interim interdict were met, and the matter should be referred to the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 413
Parties
Applicant: Lillian Nonhlanhla Mokoena; Applicant: Sarah Danisile Mthethwa; Respondent: Phillip Banda; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg; Respondent: Director General - Gauteng Department of Human Settlements; Respondent: MEC: Gauteng Department of Human Settlements; Respondent: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2025
Case Number
2025/048842
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Relief; Unopposed Motion
Outcome
Interim interdict granted restraining transfer and sale of the property pending investigation; matter referred to Department of Human Settlement for inquiry; costs reserved.
Judges
Noko
Legal Topics
Conversion of Rights to Leasehold, Upgrading of Land Tenure, Administrative Review, Interim Interdict, Allocation of Housing Rights
Land and Property Administrative Law Conversion of Rights to Leasehold Upgrading of Land Tenure Administrative Review Interim Interdict Allocation of Housing Rights

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lillian Nonhlanhla Mokoena

Applicant

Sarah Danisile Mthethwa

Applicant

Phillip Banda

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Johannesburg

Respondent

Director General - Gauteng Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

MEC: Gauteng Department of Human Settlements

Respondent

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Relief; Unopposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the registration of the property in the name of the first respondent was lawful and compliant with the Conversion Act and ULTRA.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have rights to the property based on historical permits and family allocation.
  3. 3 Whether the administrative process followed by the Department of Human Settlement was procedurally fair and lawful.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants established a prima facie right to the property based on historical permits and family allocation records. The process followed by the Department of Human Settlement and the Council in registering the property in the first respondent's name was procedurally flawed, as no proper inquiry was conducted as required by the Conversion Act and ULTRA. The cession of rights by the first respondent's father was incompetent, as he held no rights capable of cession. The applicants demonstrated urgency and potential irreparable harm if the property were transferred or sold. The requirements for an interim interdict were met, and the matter should be referred to the...

Court Disposition

Interim interdict granted restraining transfer and sale of the property pending investigation; matter referred to Department of Human Settlement for inquiry; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Interim interdict issued restraining the Registrar of Deeds (Johannesburg) from registering transfer of Erf 9[…] O[…] W[…] T[…] to any party pending investigation as envisaged in section 2 of the Conversion Act or section 2 of ULTRA.
  • The first respondent is interdicted from selling or passing transfer of Erf 9[…] O[…] W[…] T[…] to any party pending the investigation.