Selemetja vs City of Johannesburg (024646/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 342 (8 April 2024)

Selemetja vs City of Johannesburg (024646/2024) [2024] ZAGPJHC 342 (8 April 2024)

The application is dismissed because there is a genuine and bona fide dispute of fact regarding the alleged threats and conduct of the respondents, which cannot be resolved on the papers. The applicants failed to establish the requirements for a final interdict, including a clear right and reasonable apprehension of harm. The respondents have no interest in evicting the applicants, and any eviction is subject to a pending lawful process in the Pretoria High Court. The applicants have alternative remedies available should unlawful eviction occur. The relief sought is academic, as eviction without a court order is already prohibited by law.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 342
Parties
Applicant: Sunnyboy Selemetja; Respondent: City of Johannesburg
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 April 2024
Case Number
024646/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
KILLIAN
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Eviction Without Court Order, Dispute of Fact, Urgent Application Requirements
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Eviction Without Court Order Dispute of Fact Urgent Application Requirements

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

Sunnyboy Selemetja

Applicant

City of Johannesburg

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict preventing eviction or harassment without a court order.
  2. 2 Whether there is a real and bona fide dispute of fact that precludes final relief on motion.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been met by the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because there is a genuine and bona fide dispute of fact regarding the alleged threats and conduct of the respondents, which cannot be resolved on the papers. The applicants failed to establish the requirements for a final interdict, including a clear right and reasonable apprehension of harm. The respondents have no interest in evicting the applicants, and any eviction is subject to a pending lawful process in the Pretoria High Court. The applicants have alternative remedies available should unlawful eviction occur. The relief sought is academic, as eviction without a court order is already prohibited by law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.