Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (5394/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 130 (11 March 2011)

Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (5394/11) [2011] ZAGPPHC 130 (11 March 2011)

The court found that the respondent lawfully declared the Bapsfontein informal settlement a disaster area based on expert geological reports indicating the presence of sinkholes and imminent danger. The respondent's duty to protect residents' lives justified the relocation, and the PIE Act was not applicable in these circumstances. The applicants had been aware of the need to relocate since December 2010 but resisted. The court held that the applicants could not dictate the area of relocation, as this was an administrative function of the municipality. The application lacked urgency and merit, and the applicants failed to establish a basis for the relief sought. The application was...

Citation
[2011] ZAGPPHC 130
Parties
Applicant: Nthabiseng Pheko and 777 Others; Respondent: Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 March 2011
Case Number
5394/11
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
Judges
Makgoba
Legal Topics
Disaster Management Act, Eviction, Urgent Interdict, Alternative Accommodation
Administrative Law Land and Property Disaster Management Act Eviction Urgent Interdict Alternative Accommodation

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nthabiseng Pheko and 777 Others

Applicant

Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acted lawfully in relocating the applicants from the declared disaster area.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict preventing their eviction and demolition of their shelters.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent is obliged to obtain a court order under the PIE Act before relocating the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent lawfully declared the Bapsfontein informal settlement a disaster area based on expert geological reports indicating the presence of sinkholes and imminent danger. The respondent's duty to protect residents' lives justified the relocation, and the PIE Act was not applicable in these circumstances. The applicants had been aware of the need to relocate since December 2010 but resisted. The court held that the applicants could not dictate the area of relocation, as this was an administrative function of the municipality. The application lacked urgency and merit, and the applicants failed to establish a basis for the relief sought. The application was...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.
  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.