Ngomane and Others v Govan Mbeki Municipality (CCT17/16) [2016] ZACC 31; 2016 (12) BCLR 1528 (CC) (8 September 2016)

Ngomane and Others v Govan Mbeki Municipality (CCT17/16) [2016] ZACC 31; 2016 (12) BCLR 1528 (CC) (8 September 2016)

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred by failing to ensure meaningful engagement between the Municipality and the occupiers prior to eviction proceedings, as required by section 26 of the Constitution and the PIE Act. The High Court's conversion of the interdict application into an eviction application without proper compliance with procedural and substantive requirements prejudiced the applicants. The applicants were deprived of an opportunity for meaningful engagement and a costs order to which they would have been entitled had the application been dismissed. The appeal was granted, the High Court's order was set aside, and a new order was made requiring meaningful...

Citation
[2016] ZACC 31
Parties
Applicant: Bongane Ngomane; Applicant: Samson Nkabinde; Applicant: Nomawethu Cawe; Applicant: Occupiers of Extensions 9, 21, 25 Kinross and the farm Zondagskraal 125 IS, District Kinross; Respondent: Govan Mbeki Municipality
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 September 2016
Case Number
CCT 17/16
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal and Merits Decided
Outcome
Appeal granted; High Court order set aside and replaced with order requiring meaningful engagement and procedural compliance; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Mogoeng, Bosielo, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Mhlantla, Nkabinde, Zondo
Legal Topics
Right to Housing, Meaningful Engagement, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Section 26 Constitution, Eviction Procedure, Res Judicata
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Right to Housing Meaningful Engagement Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Section 26 Constitution Eviction Procedure +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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongane Ngomane

Applicant

Samson Nkabinde

Applicant

Nomawethu Cawe

Applicant

Occupiers of Extensions 9, 21, 25 Kinross and the farm Zondagskraal 125 IS, District Kinross

Applicant

Govan Mbeki Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Appeal From High Court; Application for Leave to Appeal and Merits Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in converting an interdict application into an eviction application under the PIE Act without proper compliance.
  2. 2 Whether meaningful engagement between the Municipality and the occupiers was required before eviction proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court's order deprived the applicants of costs and procedural fairness.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that the High Court erred by failing to ensure meaningful engagement between the Municipality and the occupiers prior to eviction proceedings, as required by section 26 of the Constitution and the PIE Act. The High Court's conversion of the interdict application into an eviction application without proper compliance with procedural and substantive requirements prejudiced the applicants. The applicants were deprived of an opportunity for meaningful engagement and a costs order to which they would have been entitled had the application been dismissed. The appeal was granted, the High Court's order was set aside, and a new order was made requiring meaningful...

Court Disposition

Appeal granted; High Court order set aside and replaced with order requiring meaningful engagement and procedural compliance; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal succeeds with costs.