Tedstone Flats CC and Others v Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (LCC209/2021) [2023] ZALCC 7 (16 March 2023)
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to just administrative action and that meaningful engagement with both the receiving community and the occupier respondents was lacking. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as there was reasonable apprehension of harm, the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and no alternative remedy was available. The relocation was stayed pending the outcome of the review application, and the municipality was ordered to provide comprehensive reports on community engagement, long-term housing plans, income levels, and costs. Costs were reserved for determination at the outcome of the review application.
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCC 7
- Parties
- Applicant: Tedstone Flats CC and 9 Others; Respondent: Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Head of the Gauteng Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform; Respondent: City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Joseph Mojela and 126 Others
- Court
- Land Claims Court
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2023
- Case Number
- LCC209/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Interim Urgent Application for Interdict Pending Review
- Outcome
- Application granted. Interim interdict issued staying relocation pending review. Costs reserved.
- Judges
- M T Ncube
- Legal Topics
- Relocation of Occupiers, Meaningful Engagement, Just Administrative Action, Section 26 Right to Housing, Interim Interdict, Consultation Requirements
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Tedstone Flats CC and 9 Others
Applicant
Maple View Investments (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Head of the Gauteng Provincial Office of the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform
Respondent
City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality
Respondent
Joseph Mojela and 126 Others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Urgent Application for Interdict Pending Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for an interim interdict pending review of the municipality's decision to relocate occupiers to Tedstoneville.
- 2 Whether there was meaningful and effective consultation with the receiving community and the occupier respondents regarding the relocation.
- 3 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been satisfied, including prima facie right, reasonable apprehension of harm, balance of convenience, and absence of alternative remedy.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to just administrative action and that meaningful engagement with both the receiving community and the occupier respondents was lacking. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied, as there was reasonable apprehension of harm, the balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and no alternative remedy was available. The relocation was stayed pending the outcome of the review application, and the municipality was ordered to provide comprehensive reports on community engagement, long-term housing plans, income levels, and costs. Costs were reserved for determination at the outcome of the review application.
Court Disposition
Application granted. Interim interdict issued staying relocation pending review. Costs reserved.
Orders
- Non-compliance with ordinary rules of service and filing is condoned.
- Relocation of the Fourth to One Hundred and Twenty Seventh respondents to Tedstoneville is stayed pending finalization of the review application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment