Rustenburg Local Municipality v Molubi and Others (UM123/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 93 (22 June 2023)

Rustenburg Local Municipality v Molubi and Others (UM123/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 93 (22 June 2023)

The court found that the applicant was in lawful and undisturbed possession of the property prior to the respondents' occupation. The evidence established that the applicant purchased and maintained the property, and that the respondents' occupation was not based on any enforceable right but rather on a mistaken belief of permission. The respondent's evidence, including photographs and affidavits, did not demonstrate residential occupation at the relevant time. The court held that mere uninterrupted presence does not amount to possession, and the applicant's possession was unlawfully disturbed by the respondents. The requirements for a spoliation order were met, and the applicant was...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 93
Parties
Applicant: Rustenburg Local Municipality; Respondent: John Molubi; Respondent: Naniki Josephine Magano; Respondent: Noxolo Eunice Qulu; Respondent: Ms Keneilwe; Respondent: Mr Sithole; Respondent: Mr Tumisang; Respondent: Ms Maki; Respondent: Ms Nxalo; Respondent: Mr Lucky Ramorora; Respondent: Mr SH Marringue; Respondent: Mr Moalusi; Respondent: Mr Mashigo; Respondent: Any person who associates with all the respondents above and who intends to keep possession of the farm R[...] 2[...], Rustenburg; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner of the Police; Respondent: Station Commander of Rustenburg Police Station; Respondent: Station Commander of Phokeng Police Station
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 June 2023
Case Number
UM123/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi
Outcome
The rule nisi is confirmed. The respondents are ordered to restore possession and access to the property to the applicant, remove illegal structures, refrain from further spoliation, and comply with the order within seven days. Each party is to pay its own costs.
Judges
FMM Reid (was Snyman)
Legal Topics
Spoliation, Possession, Eviction Procedure, Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, Unlawful Occupation
Land and Property Civil Procedure Spoliation Possession Eviction Procedure Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act Unlawful Occupation

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Applicant

John Molubi

Respondent

Naniki Josephine Magano

Respondent

Noxolo Eunice Qulu

Respondent

Ms Keneilwe

Respondent

Mr Sithole

Respondent

Mr Tumisang

Respondent

Ms Maki

Respondent

Ms Nxalo

Respondent

Mr Lucky Ramorora

Respondent

Mr SH Marringue

Respondent

Mr Moalusi

Respondent

Mr Mashigo

Respondent

Any person who associates with all the respondents above and who intends to keep possession of the farm R[...] 2[...], Rustenburg

Respondent

Provincial Commissioner of the Police

Respondent

Station Commander of Rustenburg Police Station

Respondent

Station Commander of Phokeng Police Station

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Confirmation of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was in lawful and undisturbed possession of the property prior to the respondents' occupation.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' occupation amounted to unlawful spoliation.
  3. 3 Whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) applies to the facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was in lawful and undisturbed possession of the property prior to the respondents' occupation. The evidence established that the applicant purchased and maintained the property, and that the respondents' occupation was not based on any enforceable right but rather on a mistaken belief of permission. The respondent's evidence, including photographs and affidavits, did not demonstrate residential occupation at the relevant time. The court held that mere uninterrupted presence does not amount to possession, and the applicant's possession was unlawfully disturbed by the respondents. The requirements for a spoliation order were met, and the applicant was...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi is confirmed. The respondents are ordered to restore possession and access to the property to the applicant, remove illegal structures, refrain from further spoliation, and comply with the order within seven days. Each party is to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi granted on 30 September 2021 is confirmed.
  • The 1st, 2nd, 4th to 13th respondents are ordered to restore to the applicant full possession and access to the property situated at Farm R[...] 2[...], Portion 1, Rustenburg, including removing illegal incomplete structures erected on the applicant’s property.