South Africa Case Law

Democratic Alliance and Another v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (21 January 2025) (1330/2024)

Democratic Alliance and Another v Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality and Others (21 January 2025) (1330/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 13 (21 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1330/2024

Judge

Mbhele

The court found that the SAPS did not fail in their constitutional mandate. The evidence showed that SAPS assisted the Sheriff in executing the court order, deployed a significant number of officers, and made arrests. The DA failed to provide clear evidence of inadequacy in SAPS intervention or irrationality in the decision to arrest only 24 individuals out of a much larger group. The SAPS acted within their discretion, balancing the need to maintain public order, protect lives, and treat unlawful occupiers with dignity. The responsibility for executing the eviction order lay primarily with t…

Source excerpt

• Execution Of Court Orders
• Land Invasion
• Police Constitutional Duties
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Trespass
• Municipal Land Management

S v Ngulashi (01/2024)

S v Ngulashi (01/2024) [2024] ZANWHC 39 (14 February 2024)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

01/2024

Judges

J T Djaje, FMM Reid

On special review, the High Court set aside the guilty plea proceedings on theft because the accused did not admit intention, but confirmed the trespassing proceedings.

• Guilty Plea Requirements
• Elements Of Theft
• Statutory Trespass
• Criminal Procedure Act Section 302
• Criminal-procedure
• Guilty-plea

Astra Boerdery CC and Another v Acting Station Commander Ganyesa and Others (UM100/22)

Astra Boerdery CC and Another v Acting Station Commander Ganyesa and Others (UM100/22) [2023] ZANWHC 164 (12 September 2023)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM100/22

Judge

Reddy

The High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application against SAPS officials, finding no proven wilful and mala fide non-compliance with earlier court orders.

• Contempt Of Court
• Interdict
• Execution Of Court Orders
• Trespass
• Police Duties
• Burden Of Proof

Herman Steyn Erfgename CC and Another v Mdau N.O and Others (2687/23)

Herman Steyn Erfgename CC and Another v Mdau N.O and Others (2687/23) [2023] ZAMPMHC 25 (31 July 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2687/23

Judge

Z Gumede

The court found that although the sale agreements may have been cancelled, the applicants had granted the respondents permission to occupy the properties pending payment of occupational rent. The continued occupation by the respondents, in light of this permission and ongoing negotiations, does not amount to trespass. The applicants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, as they retain ownership and possession of the purchase price, and have alternative remedies such as damages and eviction proceedings under clause 16.2. The requirements for an urgent interim interdict were not satisfied, an…

Source excerpt

• Sale Of Immovable Property
• Occupational Rent
• Cancellation Of Contract
• Eviction Proceedings
• Interim Interdict
• Trespass

Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd v Mabena and Others (913/2023)

Capital Propfund (Pty) Ltd v Mabena and Others (913/2023) [2023] ZAMPMHC 14 (24 April 2023)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

913/2023

Judge

MBG Langa

The High Court granted an urgent interdict restraining protests and interference at a shopping plaza, finding unlawful conduct, ongoing harm, and inadequate redress.

• Urgent Interdict
• Trespass
• Unlawful Gatherings
• Regulation Of Gatherings Act
• Reasonable Apprehension Of Harm
• Costs On Attorney And Client Scale

Mokala Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Sebausengwe and Others (1334/2022)

Mokala Manganese (Pty) Ltd v Sebausengwe and Others (1334/2022) [2023] ZANCHC 14 (17 March 2023)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1334/2022

Judge

Lever

The court found that the applicant established the requirements for a final interdict. The respondents' denials were either unsupported, inherently improbable, or contradicted by their own affidavits and conduct. The fifth respondent's timesheet did not support his claim and lacked corroborating evidence. The seventh respondent's explanation was vague and insufficient. The respondents were present at a meeting where demands were made, and their subsequent conduct was consistent with acting in concert to blockade the mine. The police respondents did not oppose the application, and the relief a…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Urgent Interdict
• Mining Rights
• Trespass
• Public Order
• Mine Health And Safety Act

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Another (522/2022)

Vaalharts Water Users' Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams and Another (522/2022) [2022] ZANCHC 73 (4 November 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

522/2022

Judge

Lever

The High Court confirmed a rule nisi and granted a final interdict against unlawful occupation and trespass on farm Guldenskat, with costs against the first respondent.

• Final Interdict
• Trespass Act
• Ostensible Authority
• Res Judicata
• Jurisdiction
• Costs Order

Wibbelink and Another v The Unkown Individuals entering and/or Trespassing and/or Settling and/or Building on the Immovable Property Known as Portion [....] of ERF [....] Jan Niemand Park and Others (64145/2021)

Wibbelink and Another v The Unkown Individuals entering and/or Trespassing and/or Settling and/or Building on the Immovable Property Known as Portion [....] of ERF [....] Jan Niemand Park and Others (64145/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 642 (31 August 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

64145/2021

Judge

Ndlokovane

The High Court refused a postponement sought by the third respondent, finding no good cause. The rule nisi remained in place and costs were reserved.

• Postponement
• Rule Nisi
• Urgent Interdict
• Trespass
• Joinder Of Parties
• Urgent-interdict

Vaalharts Water Users Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams (1926/2020)

Vaalharts Water Users Association t/a Vaalharts Water v Williams (1926/2020) [2021] ZANCHC 27 (2 July 2021)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1926/2020

Judge

Stanton

The High Court confirmed a final interdict restraining the respondent from entering specified properties and offices, citing threats, trespass concerns, and no adequate alternative remedy.

• Final Interdict
• Trespass Act
• Lis Pendens
• Alternative Remedy
• Costs Order
• Final-interdict

Economic Freedom Fighters v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another

The Court held that section 18(2)(b) of the Riotous Assemblies Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalises incitement of another to commit 'any offence', because that phrase is overbroad and disproportionately limits protected freedom of expression under section 16(1) when a less restrictive means would be to confine the offence to serious offences. The Court also held that the High Court's invalidation of the sentencing aspect could not stand, because 'liable' does not mean mandatory punishment. The applicants' Trespass Act claim was refused because they did not launch a direc…

Source excerpt

• Freedom of expression
• Incitement
• Sentencing
• Overbreadth
• Less restrictive means
• Trespass