Ndou and Others v Thulamela Municipality (HCA 01/2023; 1143/2018) [2025] ZALMPTHC 5; [2025] 3 All SA 212 (LT) (24 March 2025)

Ndou and Others v Thulamela Municipality (HCA 01/2023; 1143/2018) [2025] ZALMPTHC 5; [2025] 3 All SA 212 (LT) (24 March 2025)

The court found that the respondent proved ownership of the properties and that the appellants' occupation was unlawful and exceeded six months. The court a quo actively investigated all relevant circumstances, including the appellants' personal situations and the availability of alternative accommodation. The appellants failed to provide the required personal information despite being ordered to do so. The respondent offered demarcated residential sites for resettlement. The authority of the respondent's deponent was not properly challenged under Rule 7, rendering the objection meritless. The constitutional and statutory requirements for eviction were satisfied, and the court a quo...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPTHC 5
Parties
Appellant: Mr Ndou MP; Appellant: Nemalili Shaggy; Appellant: Mutshotsho Issac; Appellant: Basela Shandukani; Appellant: Mrs Nemutudi; Appellant: Munyai Tsumbedzo; Appellant: Ligege J; Appellant: Thohoyandou Block F, Civic Association; Appellant: All Occupants of Erf 6[...] Block F Thohoyandou; Appellant: All Occupants of Park 2[...] Block F Thohoyandou; Appellant: All Occupants of Erf […] Block F Thohoyandou; Appellant: All Occupants of Park 1[...] Block F Thohoyandou; Appellant: Thohoyandou Thirteenth Appellant; Appellant: Thohoyandou Fourteenth Appellant; Appellant: Thohoyandou Fifteenth Appellant; Respondent: Thulamela Municipality
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 March 2025
Case Number
HCA 01/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Confirming Eviction Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Eviction order confirmed.
Judges
ASL Van Wyk, TV Ratshibvumo, S Mathabathe
Legal Topics
Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Just and Equitable Eviction, Municipal Land Ownership, Alternative Accommodation, Constitutional Right to Housing, Authority of Deponent
Land and Property Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Just and Equitable Eviction Municipal Land Ownership Alternative Accommodation Constitutional Right to Housing +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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ndou MP

Appellant

Nemalili Shaggy

Appellant

Mutshotsho Issac

Appellant

Basela Shandukani

Appellant

Mrs Nemutudi

Appellant

Munyai Tsumbedzo

Appellant

Ligege J

Appellant

Thohoyandou Block F, Civic Association

Appellant

All Occupants of Erf 6[...] Block F Thohoyandou

Appellant

All Occupants of Park 2[...] Block F Thohoyandou

Appellant

All Occupants of Erf […] Block F Thohoyandou

Appellant

All Occupants of Park 1[...] Block F Thohoyandou

Appellant

Thohoyandou Thirteenth Appellant

Appellant

Thohoyandou Fourteenth Appellant

Appellant

Thohoyandou Fifteenth Appellant

Appellant

Thulamela Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment Confirming Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order granted by the court a quo was just and equitable under section 4(7) of the PIE Act.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' personal circumstances and rights under the Constitution were adequately considered.
  3. 3 Whether mediation and alternative accommodation were properly addressed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent proved ownership of the properties and that the appellants' occupation was unlawful and exceeded six months. The court a quo actively investigated all relevant circumstances, including the appellants' personal situations and the availability of alternative accommodation. The appellants failed to provide the required personal information despite being ordered to do so. The respondent offered demarcated residential sites for resettlement. The authority of the respondent's deponent was not properly challenged under Rule 7, rendering the objection meritless. The constitutional and statutory requirements for eviction were satisfied, and the court a quo...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Eviction order confirmed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The 60 days referred to in paragraphs 67.3, 67.4, and 67.5 of the court a quo's judgment shall be calculated from the date of this judgment.