Ngeketo and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (3750/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 41 (20 September 2022)

Ngeketo and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others (3750/2022) [2022] ZAECMHC 41 (20 September 2022)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they were in peaceful possession of the Highbury land or that any structures belonging to them were demolished by the respondents. Photographic evidence confirmed the absence of any structures on the relevant date. The applicants did not reside on the land and could not claim spoliation or meet the requirements for either interim or final interdictory relief. The application was therefore dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie or clear right, irreparable harm, or the balance of convenience in their favour.

Citation
[2022] ZAECMHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Velisani Ngeketo and 37 Others; Respondent: Minister of Justice and Correctional Services; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2022
Case Number
3750/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
Dreyer
Legal Topics
Unlawful Occupation, Interdict, Mandament Van Spolie, Prevention of Illegal Eviction, Prima Facie Right
Land and Property Civil Procedure Unlawful Occupation Interdict Mandament Van Spolie Prevention of Illegal Eviction Prima Facie Right

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Velisani Ngeketo and 37 Others

Applicant

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were in peaceful possession of the Highbury land on 29 July 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents demolished any structures belonging to the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to interim or final interdictory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that they were in peaceful possession of the Highbury land or that any structures belonging to them were demolished by the respondents. Photographic evidence confirmed the absence of any structures on the relevant date. The applicants did not reside on the land and could not claim spoliation or meet the requirements for either interim or final interdictory relief. The application was therefore dismissed as the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie or clear right, irreparable harm, or the balance of convenience in their favour.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.