Rangaka v Modimokwane N.O and Others (1200/2011) [2024] ZANWHC 49 (29 February 2024)

Rangaka v Modimokwane N.O and Others (1200/2011) [2024] ZANWHC 49 (29 February 2024)

The applicant established urgency due to the imminent threat of ejectment and loss of possession. The respondents failed to file a valid answering affidavit and did not provide any substantive opposition to the relief sought. The 2016 ejectment order was stayed by the 2020 order, which remains binding and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZANWHC 49
Parties
Applicant: Godfrey Kinni Rangaka; Respondent: Sarah Kenalemang Modimokwane N.O; Respondent: Sarah Kenalemang Modimokwane; Respondent: Tshepiso David Ramphele (trading as Ramphele Attorneys); Respondent: Sheriff of the Magistrates’ Court Rustenburg
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 February 2024
Case Number
1200/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Stay of Execution Pending Rescission or Variation of Prior Order
Judges
Mfenyana
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Stay of Execution, Ejectment, Contempt of Court, Attorney and Client Costs
Civil Procedure Land and Property Urgent Interdict Stay of Execution Ejectment Contempt of Court Attorney and Client Costs

Source-derived case record

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Godfrey Kinni Rangaka

Applicant

Sarah Kenalemang Modimokwane N.O

Respondent

Sarah Kenalemang Modimokwane

Respondent

Tshepiso David Ramphele (trading as Ramphele Attorneys)

Respondent

Sheriff of the Magistrates’ Court Rustenburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Stay of Execution Pending Rescission or Variation of Prior Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to proceed with the ejectment of the applicant from the property despite the 2020 order staying the 2016 ejectment order.
  2. 2 Whether the re-issued writ of ejectment is valid and executable in light of the stayed order.
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the respondents amounts to harassment, intimidation, or contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant established urgency due to the imminent threat of ejectment and loss of possession. The respondents failed to file a valid answering affidavit and did not provide any substantive opposition to the relief sought. The 2016 ejectment order was stayed by the 2020 order, which remains binding and enforceable until set aside by a competent court. The respondents' attempts to execute the writ and proceed with the ejectment are unlawful and amount to contempt of court. The applicant is entitled to an interdict restraining the respondents from ejecting him or harassing occupants of the property, and the writ of execution is stayed pending rescission, variation, or setting aside of...