About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAGPPHC 426
|
|
Madibeng Local Municipality v Unlawful Occupiers of Portions 33, 35 and 37 of the farm 488 Bokfontein (27485/15) [2015] ZAGPPHC 426 (5 June 2015)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION,
PRETORIA)
CASE N0127485/15
REPORTABLE: NO
OF INTEREST TO OTHER
JUDGES: NO
DATE: 5 June 2015
In the matter between:
MADIBENG
LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY
...
........................................................................
APPLICANT
and
THE
UNLAWFUL
OCCUPIERS OF
PORTIONS
.
..............................................
RESPONDENTS
33, 35 AND 37 OF THE
FARM 448 BOKFONTEIN
J U D G M E N T
HEARD ON: 28 MAY 2015
JUDGMENT ON: 05 JUNE 2015
[1] The applicant is the
lawful owner of portions 33, 35 and 37 of the farm 448, Bokfontein
("the land"). The respondents
occupied the site in question
on 6 May 2015. The applicant became aware that a group of people were
illegally erecting structures
on the land on 10 May 2015. The
applicant immediately conducted a site inspection and established
that about 150 structures were
erected on the land. A notice calling
upon the respondents to evacuate the land with immediate effect was
issued and served on
the respondents. The notice informed the
respondents that if the land is not evacuated as requested in the
notice legal proceedings
will be instituted against them.
[2] The respondents
failed to heed the notice and on 13 May 2015 the applicant served
them with this application. The application
stated that they appear
in court the following day. They were in fact given less than 48
hours' notice to file their opposing papers.
The matter was set down
for hearing on 14 May 2015. The matter came before Bofilatos Al who
raised a concern about the service
of the application. Bofilatos Al
postponed the matter
s
i
ne
d
i
e
to
afford
the
respon
d
ents
an
opportun
i
ty
to
f
i
l
e
the
i
r
answer
i
ng
aff
i
dav
i
t.
T
h
e
respondents
were
ordered
to
file
their
answer
i
ng
aff
i
dav
i
t
on
1
8
May
2
0
1
5
and
the
appl
i
cant
to
rep
l
y
thereto
by
20
May
2
0
1
5.
By
1
8
May
2
0
15
the
respondents
had
not
filed
their answering
affidavit.
[3]
The
matter
was
re-enrolled
for
hear
i
ng
i
n
the
u
rgent
co
u
rt
and came
before
Mav
u
nd
l
a
l
on
2
1
May
2
0
1
5.
Mavund
l
a
J
made
a
rul
i
ng
that
the
matter
was
u
rgent
and
granted
the
applicant
rel
i
ef
i
n
terms
of
prayer
1
of
i
ts
not
i
ce
of
mot
i
on
i
n
respect
of
the
u
rgency.
Having
ru
l
ed
as
such
the
judge
granted
the
respondents
a
further
i
ndulgence
to
file
their
answeri
ng
affidavit
on
25
May
20
15
and
the
applicant
to
reply
thereto
by
27
May
2
0
1
5.
When
the
matter
appeared
before
me
the
part
i
es,
hav
i
ng
complied
w
i
th
the
order
of
Mavundla
J
were
ready
to
argue.
[
4]
I
t
i
s
not
i
n
d
i
spute
that
the
l
and
i
s
earmarl:?ed for the
re
l
ocat
i
on
of
the
Orange Farm
i
nformal
sett
l
ement
i
n
terms of
the
co
u
rt
order
granted
on
6
October
2
0
1
4
.
The
appl
i
cant
i
s
still
i
n
the
process
of
i
mp
l
ement
i
ng
other
requ
i
rements
i
n
terms
of
the
co
u
rt
order
and
will
not
be
i
n
a
pos
i
t
i
on
to
fina
l
i
se
all
the
requ
i
rements
i
n
terms of the
order
if
the
respon
d
ents
rema
i
n
on
the
l
an
d
.
[5]
I
t
i
s
common
co
u
rse
that
the
app
l
i
cat
i
on
for
the
ev
i
ct
i
on
of
the
respondents
was
i
ssued
in
terms
of
the
common
l
aw
and
the
appl
i
cant
so
u
ght
an
u
rgent
final
ev
i
ction
order.
S
i
nce
the
app
l
i
cat
i
on
was
ru
l
ed
urgent
by
Mav
u
nd
l
a
J,
what
rema
i
ned
for
determ
i
nat
i
on
wou
l
d
have
been
whether
the
applicant
has
made
out
a
case
for a
f
i
nal
i
nterd
i
ct
restrai
ning
the
respondent
from
occupying,
entering
and
erecting
any
structure
of
whatsoever
nat
u
re
on
the
l
an
d
.
[6]
However, the
respondents
i
n
their
answer
i
ng
papers
ra
i
sed
the
i
ssue
of
the
non comp
l
i
ance
by
the
appl
i
cant
of
the
requ
i
rements
of
the
Prevent
i
on
of
Illegal
Ev
i
ct
i
on
from
and
Un
l
awful
Occ
u
pat
i
on
of
Land
Act
19 of
1998
("the
P
I
E").
The
argument
i
s
that
an
order
for
the
ev
i
ct
i
on
of
the
respondents
from
the
l
and
can
be
granted
only
i
n
terms
of
s
4 and
4
(
8
)
of
P
I
E,
read
together
w
i
th
s
6
(
3
)
and
6
(4)
of
P
I
E
s
i
nce
the
ev
i
ct
i
on
i
s
at
the
i
nstance
of
an
organ
of
state.
I
t
was
f
u
rther
contented
that
the
prov
i
s
i
ons
of
P
I
E
are
appl
i
cab
l
e
i
n
the
circumstances
of
th
i
s
matter.
[
7]
I
n
the
fo
u
nd
i
ng
affidav
i
t
i
t
was
the
applicant's
case
that
the
respondents
occup
i
ed
the
l
and
w
i
thout
i
ts
perm
i
ss
i
o
n
,
but
s
i
nce
i
t
was
not
be
i
ng
used
as
a dwelling
ne
i
ther
the
Extension
of
Secur
i
ty
of
Tenure
Act
62 of
1997 nor
P
I
E
found
app
l
i
cation
i
n
th
i
s
matter.
H
owever,
i
n
rep
l
y
to
the
respondents'
answer
i
ng
aff
i
dav
i
t
the
appl
i
cant
concedes
that
P
I
E
i
s
applicab
l
e.
I
t
i
s
,
therefore,
common
cause
that
the
prov
i
s
i
ons
of
P
I
E
are
app
l
icab
l
e
to
the
respondents'
evi
cti
on
from
the
land
.
[8]
Where
the
ev
i
ct
i
on
takes
place
at
the
i
nstance
of
an
organ
of
state
i
n
c
i
rc
u
mstances
to
wh
i
ch
P
I
E
i
s
app
l
icable
the
co
u
rt
can
only
order
ev
i
ct
i
on
i
f
i
t
i
s
sat
i
sfied
that
i
t
i
s
j
u
st
and
equitab
l
e
to
do
so
after
hav
i
ng
regard
to
all
the
re
l
evant
factors
i
nclud
i
ng
those
set
out
i
n
s
6
(
3
)
of
P
I
E,
namely
the
circ
u
mstances
i
n
wh
i
ch
the
occ
u
p
i
ers
came
to occ
u
py
the
l
and
and
erect
structures
thereo
n
,
the
per
i
od
they
have
res
i
ded
on
the
l
and
and
the
availabil
i
ty
of su
i
table
a
l
ternative
accommodat
i
on
or
l
an
d
.
[9]
I
n
terms
of
s
6 (6) of
P
I
E,
the
proced
u
res
set
i
n
s
4
app
l
y,
w
i
th
the
necessary
change
s
,
to
any
proceedings
i
n
terms
of
subsect
i
on
(1).
[
1
0]
I
t
i
s
therefore
apt
to
q
u
ote
the
app
l
i
cab
l
e
prov
i
s
i
on
of
s
4
wh
i
ch
read
as
follows:
"4.
Eviction
of
unlawful
occupiers.-
Notw
i
thstand
i
ng
anything
to
the
contrary
contained
i
n
any
l
aw
or
the
common
l
aw,
the
prov
i
s
i
ons
of
th
i
s
sect
i
on
apply
to
proceed
i
ngs
by
an
owner
or
person
in
charge
of
l
and
for
the
ev
i
ct
i
on
of
an
un
l
awful
occup
i
er.
At
least
14
days
before
the
hearing
of
the
proceedings
contemplated
in
subsection
(1),
the
court
must
serve
written
and
effective
noti
ce
of
the
proceedings
on
the
unlawful
occupier
and
the
muni
ci
pality
having
jurisdiction.
Subject
to
the
provi
sions
of
subsection
(2
),
the
procedure
for
the
serving
of
noti
ces
and
filing
of
papers
is
as
prescribed
by
the
rules
of
the
court
i
n
questi
on.
Subject
to
the
provi
sions
of
subsection
(2
),
i
f
a
court
i
s
satisfied
that
service
cannot
conveniently
or
expedi
ti
ously
be
effected
in
the
manner
provided
i
n
the
rules
of
the
court,
service
must
be
effected
in
the
manner
di
rected
by
the
court:
Provided
that
the
court
must
consider
the
rights
of
the
unlawful
occupier
to
receive
adequate
noti
ce
and
to
defend
the
case.
The
noti
ce
of
proceedings
contemplated
i
n
subsection
(2
)
must-
state
that
proceedings
are
be
i
ng
i
nst
i
tuted
in
terms
of
subsect
i
on
(
1
)
for
an
order
for
the
eviction
of
the
unlawful
occupier:
(
b
) indicate
on
what
date
and
at
what
time
the
court
will
hear
the
proceedings;
(q
set
out
the
grounds
for
the
proposed
eviction,
and
(a)
state
that
the
unlawful
occupi
er
i
s
entitled
to
appear
before
the
court
and
defend
the
case
and,
where
necessary,
has
the
right
to
apply
for
legal
aid
.
(6)
I
f
an
unlawful
occupier
has
occupied
the
land
i
n
quest
i
on
for
less
than
s
i
x
months
at
the
t
i
me
when
the
proceedings
are
i
n
i
tiate
d
,
a
court
may
grant
an
order
for
ev
i
ction
i
f
i
t
i
s
of
the
op
i
n
i
on
that
i
t
is
just
and
equitab
l
e
to
do
so,
after
cons
i
dering
all
the
relevant
circumstances,
including
the
ri
ghts
and
needs
of
the
elderly,
children,
disabled
persons
and
households
headed
by
women.
(7)
I
f
an
unlawful
occupier
has
occupied
the
l
and
i
n
quest
i
on
for
more
than
six
months
at
the
t
i
me
when
the
proceed
i
ngs
are
i
nit
i
ate
d
,
a
court
may
grant
an
order
for
eviction
i
f
i
t
i
s
of
the
opinion
that
i
t
i
s
just
and
equitable
to
do
so,
after
considering
all
the
relevant
circumstances,
i
nclud
i
ng,
except
where
the
l
and
i
s
sold
i
n
a
sa
l
e
of
execut
i
on
pursuant
to
a
mortgag
e
,
whether
land
has
been
made
avai
l
ab
l
e
or
can
reasonably
be
made
avai
l
able
by
a
mun
i
c
i
pa
l
i
ty
or
other
organ
of
state
or
another
land
owner
for
the
relocation
of
the
unlawful
occupier,
and
i
ncluding
the
ri
ghts
and
needs
of
the
elderly,
children, disabled
persons
and
households
headed
by
women.
(8)
If
the
court
i
s
satisfied
that
all
the
requi
rements
of this
section
have
been
complied
with
and
that
no
valid
defence
has
been
raised
by
the
unlawful
occupier,
it
must
grant
an
order
for
the
eviction
of
the
unlawful
occupier,
and
determine-a
just
and
equitabl
e
date
on
which
the
unlawful
occupi
er
must
vacate
the
l
and
under
the
circumstances;
and
(
b
)
the
date
on
wh
i
ch
an
ev
i
ct
i
on
order
may
be
carried
out
i
f
the
unlawful
occupier
has
not
vacated
the
land
on
the
date
contemplated
i
n
paragraph
(a).
(9)
I
n
determining
a
just
and
equitable
date
contemplated
i
n
subsection
(8),
the
court
must
have
regard
to
all
relevant
factors,
i
ncluding
the
period
the
unlawful
occupier
and
his
or
her
family
have
resi
ded
on
the
land
in
question.
(10)
The
court
whi
ch
orders
the
evicti
on
of
any
person
i
n
terms
of
thi
s
secti
on
may
make
an
order
for
the
demolition
and
removal
of
the
buildings
or
structures
that
were
occup
i
ed
by
such
person
on
the
l
and
i
n
question.
(11)
A
court
may,
at
the
request
of
the
sheriff,
authori
se
any
person
to
assist
the
sheriff
to
carry
out
an
order
for
eviction,
demolition
or
removal
subject
to
conditions
determined
by
the
court:
Provided
that
the
sheriff
must
at
all
times
be
present
during
such
eviction,
demolition
or
removal.
(12)
Any
order
for
the
eviction
of
an
unlawful
occupier
or for
the
demolition
or
removal
of
buildi
ngs
or
structures
i
n
terms
of
thi
s
secti
on
i
s
subject
to
the
conditions
deemed
reasonable
by
the
court,
and
the
court
may,
on
good
cause
shown,
vary
any
condition
for
an
eviction
order."
[
11]
The
respondents
contends
that
s
i
nce
the
appl
i
cant
i
n
i
ts
foun
d
i
ng
papers
seeks
a
final
or
d
er
on
an
u
rgent
bas
i
s
and
hav
i
ng
co
n
ceded
that
P
I
E
app
l
i
es
to
the
ev
i
ct
i
o
n
,
the
or
d
er
i
t,
therefore,
wants
i
s
i
n
terms
of
s
4
(6)
of
P
I
E
and
as
such
the
appl
i
cant
was
obl
i
ged
to
comply
w
i
th
s
4
i
n
seeking
the
respondents'
ev
i
ct
i
on
from
the
lan
d
.
The
arg
u
ment
i
s
that
s
i
nce
the
a
p
pl
i
cant
is
seek
i
ng,
as
i
t
does,
a
f
i
nal
ev
i
ct
i
on
or
d
er,
i
t
was
obliged
i
n
terms
of
s
4
(
2
)
of
P
I
E
to
at
l
east
1
4
days
before
the
hear
i
ng
of
the
procee
d
i
ngs
contemp
l
ated
i
n
s
u
bsect
i
on
(
1
)
,
serve
a
wr
i
tten
and
effect
i
ve
notice
of
the
proceed
i
ngs
on
the
respon
d
ents.
Failure
to
comply
w
i
th
s
4
(
2),
accor
d
i
ng
to
the
respondents,
is
that
they
have
been
unab
l
e,
i
n
the
l
i
ght
of
the
exped
i
ted
t
i
me
per
i
ods,
to
p
l
ace
before
the
co
u
rt
the
personal
c
i
rc
u
mstances
of
all
the
occup
i
ers.
They
were
only
able
to
obta
i
n
the
i
nformat
i
on
of
only
34
househo
l
ds.
The
co
u
rt
i
s
i
n
these
circumstances
u
nable
to
formulate
a
v
i
ew
based
on
the
re
l
evant
consi
d
erat
i
ons
whether
i
t
is
just
and
e
q
u
i
table
to
ev
i
ct
the
respon
d
ents,
wh
i
ch
cons
i
derat
i
on
i
n
cl
u
d
es
the
r
i
ghts
and
needs
of
the
e
l
derly,
children,
d
i
sab
l
ed
persons
and
households
headed
by
women,
so
the
argument
goes.
[
1
2]
My
v
i
ew
i
s
that
the
argument
by
the
respondents
that
they
shou
l
d
have
been
g
i
ven
fourteen
days'
not
i
c
e
,
as
req
u
i
red
by
s
4
of
P
I
E,
w
i
th
i
n
which
to
respond
to
the
applicants'
foun
d
i
ng
papers
i
s
not
correct.
The
app
l
i
cants
a
p
proached
the
co
u
rt
on
urgency
and
were
allowed
by Mavundla
J
not
to
comply
with
the
applicabl
e
time
peri
ods.
[
13]
The
proper
proced
u
re
wou
l
d
have
been
for
the
court
to
grant
an
i
nter
i
m
or
d
er
i
n
terms
of
s
5
(
1
)
of
P
I
E,
however,
because
the
respondents
appeared
i
n
court
on
the
d
ate
set
for
the
hear
i
n
g
,
there
was
no
need
to
grant
the
i
nter
i
m
relief.
The
respondents
were
affor
d
ed
t
i
me,
wh
i
ch
i
n
my
op
i
n
i
on
i
s
reasonab
l
e,
w
i
th
i
n
wh
i
ch
to
fi
l
e
the
i
r
answer
i
ng
affidavi
t
and
whi
ch
was
enough
to
compl
y
with
s
4
(6)
of
PIE
.
The
circumstances
of
thi
s
case
are
such
that
the
a
p
pl
i
cants
had
to
act
sw
i
ftly
to
avo
i
d
proliferat
i
on
of
the
unlawful
occu
pati
on
of
the
land.
[
14]
I
n
my
op
i
n
i
on
Mav
u
nd
l
a
J
i
n
condon
i
ng
the
non-comp
l
i
ance
w
i
th
time
per
i
ods
truncated
the
procedure
to
be
followed
by
the
applicants
i
n
regard
to
urgency.
The
i
ssue
of
urgency
has
as
a
resul
t
fallen
away.
Secti
on
s
of
PI
E
cannot,
therefore, be
decided
afresh.
[
1
5]
Even
i
f
the
i
ss
u
i
ng
of
an
i
nter
i
m
order
wou
l
d
have
been
peremptory
i
n
terms
of
s
5
(1)
of
P
I
E
,
the
applicants
would
be
ent
i
t
l
ed
to
male
use
of
the
provis
i
ons
of
s
4
(6)
i
n
that
the
respon
d
ents
had
occ
u
p
i
ed
the
l
and
for
l
ess
than
s
i
x
months
at
the
t
i
me
the
proceed
i
ngs
were
i
n
i
t
i
ate
d
.
I
n
terms
of
s
4
(
6)
of
P
I
E
where
a
d
efendant
has
been
i
n
occupation
of
the
l
and
for
l
ess
than
s
i
x
months,
the
co
u
rt
may
grant
an
order
for
ev
i
ction
i
f
i
t
i
s
of
the
op
i
n
i
on
that
i
t
i
s
just
and
e
q
u
i
tab
l
e
to
do
s
o
,
after
consider
i
ng
all
the
re
l
evant
circumstances,
i
ncl
u
d
i
ng
the
r
i
ghts
and
needs
of
the
e
l
derly,
ch
i
l
d
re
n
,
d
i
sab
l
ed
persons
and
households
headed
by
women.
[
16]
When
all
the
relevant
circu
mstances
placed
before
me
are
cons
i
dere
d
,
I
am
sati
sfied
that
i
t
i
s
j
u
st
and
equ
i
tab
l
e
that
an
ev
i
ct
i
on
or
d
er
be
granted
aga
i
nst
the
respon
d
ents.
From
the
reading
of
the
respondents'
papers
I
could
not
make
out
any
concrete
facts
relating
to
the
ri
ghts
and
needs
of
the
vulnerable
groups,
namely,
the
elderly,
children,
d
i
sabled
persons
and
househo
l
ds
managed
by
wome
n
,
as
requ
i
red
i
n
terms
of
s
4
(
6
).
As
argued
by
the
applicant's
counsel
the
respond
ents'
poverty
and
homel
essness
cannot
be
overemphas
i
sed
over
that
of
the
peop
l
e
for
whom
the
l
and
has
been
earmarke
d
.
I
also
tool
i
nto
account
that
the
appl
i
cant
has
stated
i
n
i
ts
u
nchallenged
ev
i
dence
that
i
t
will
not
be
ab
l
e
to
prov
i
de
a
l
ternat
i
ve
accommodat
i
on
to
the
respondents
due
the
unava
i
l
ability
of
alternat
i
ve
l
and
and
budget.
[
1
7
]
The
appl
i
cants'
s
u
bm
i
ss
i
o
n
,
which
i
s
unconteste
d
,
i
s
that
at
the
t
i
me
they
i
nst
i
tuted
the
proceed
i
ngs
there
were
about
1
50
u
n
i
nhib
i
ted
structures
on
the
l
an
d
.
By
the
t
i
me
the
proceed
i
ngs
were
i
nst
i
tuted
the
applicant
had
a
l
ready
i
nformed
the
respondents
that
they
were
i
n
un
l
awful
occ
u
pation
of
the
l
an
d
.
I
t
wou
l
d
seem
that
d
esp
i
te
that
not
i
ce
the
respon
d
ents
procee
d
ed
to
i
nh
i
b
i
t
the
l
and
and
more
pe
o
p
l
e
moved
i
n
.
The
appl
i
cat
i
on
as
such
was
aimed
at
prohibi
ti
ng
thi
s
proliferati
on
.
[
18)
The
respon
d
ents
have
conce
d
ed
i
n
the
i
r
answer
i
ng
aff
i
dav
i
t
that
they
do
not
have
a
defence
to
the
appl
i
cant's
cla
i
m.
They
agree
that
they
are
i
n
u
nlawful
occupat
i
on
of
the
l
and
i
n
that
they
were
not
g
i
ven
consent
to
occ
u
py
the
l
and.
I
f
the
req
u
i
rements
of
s
4
are
sat
i
sf
i
ed
and
no
val
i
d
d
efence
to
an
ev
i
ction
or
d
er
has
been
ra
i
sed,
the
co
u
rt
'
m
u
st',
i
n
terms
of
s
4
(
8
),
grant
an
eviction
order.
[
19]
The
respon
d
ents
are
aggr
i
eved
that
they
have
not
been
allocated
the
l
and
even
though
the
app
l
i
cant
i
s
aware
of
their
d
i
re
need
for
l
and
and
accommodat
i
o
n
.
I
t
was
argued
on
their
behalf
that
they
have
over
a
period
of
years
taken
their
gri
evances
for
better
services
and
overcrowding
where
they
were
staying
with
the
applicant
and
the
appl
i
cant
has
done
noth
i
ng
about
i
t.
They
have
u
n
l
awfully
occ
u
p
i
ed
the
l
and
i
n
question
out
of
desperation
and
frustration.
The
applicant
should
have
consul
ted
with
them
pri
or
to
the
co
u
rt
or
d
er
award
i
ng
the
l
and
to
the
peop
l
e
from
Orange
Farm
was
granted
,
which
they
fai
l
ed
to
do.
They
f
u
rther
aver
that
they
will
be
l
eft
home
l
ess
shou
l
d
they
be
ev
i
cted
from
the
l
and
thereby
mak
i
ng
the
i
r
ev
i
ct
i
on
unjust
and
i
neq
u
i
tab
l
e
.
[20]
There
may
be
j
u
st
i
ficat
i
on
for
these
gr
i
evances,
but,
they
do
not,
i
n
my
v
i
ew,
const
i
tute
a
d
efence
aga
i
nst
the
applicant's
cla
i
m.
I
t
i
s
not
for
th
i
s
court
to
cons
i
der
the
veracity or
otherw
i
se
of
the
respondents'
gr
i
evances
and
i
n
any
way
they
are
aware
of
the
court
order
granted
aga
i
nst
the
appl
i
cant
i
n
respect
of
the
l
and
and
sho
u
l
d
hav
e
,
i
f
they
wante
d
,
taken
the
order
on
appeal
or
rev
i
ew.
For
as
l
ong
as
the
or
d
er
has
not
been
set
as
i
de
on
rev
i
ew
or
on
appea
l
,
i
t
rema
i
ns
b
i
nd
i
ng
on
the
appl
i
cants
and
m
u
st
be
g
i
ven
effect
to.
I
t
i
s
also
not
the
duty
of
th
i
s
court
to
order
consultation
between
the
app
l
i
cant
and
any
of
the
comm
u
n
i
t
i
es
w
i
th
i
n
i
ts
j
u
r
i
sd
i
ct
i
o
n
.
There
are
processes
and
procedures
set
out
for
such
consul
tati
ons
whi
ch
mu
st
be
followed
by
the
respondents
and
not
take
the
l
aw
i
nto
the
i
r
own
han
d
s.
[
2
1
]
The
effect
of
P
I
E
has
been
he
l
d
by
o
u
r
courts
as
not
to
expropr
i
ate
the
l
andowner
and
that
P
I
E
cannot
be
used
to
expropr
i
ate
someone
i
ndirectly.
Much
as
P
I
E
co
u
nterpo
i
ses
a
r
i
ght
not
arb
i
trarily
to
be
depr
i
ved
of
a
hom
e
,
the
l
andowner,
on
the
other
han
d
,
reta
i
ns
the
protection
agai
nst
arbitrary
deprivation
of
property
u
nder
s
25
of
the
Consti
tution.
P
I
E
serves
merely
to
d
e
l
ay
or
suspend
the
exercise
of
the
l
andowner's
full
propr
i
etary
r
i
ghts
u
nt
i
l
a
determ
i
nat
i
on
has
been
ma
d
e
whether
i
t
is
just
and
equ
i
tab
l
e
to
ev
i
ct
the
un
l
awful
occupier
and
under
what
condi
ti
ons,
if
any.
[22]
I
n
the
c
i
rc
u
mstances
the
rel
i
ef
sought
by
the
appl
i
cant
to
ev
i
ct
the
respon
d
ents
from
porti
ons
33,
35
and
37
of
the
farm
448
Bolkfontein
should
be
granted.
[23]
Section
4
(
8
)
of
PIE
enjoins
me
to
determine
a
just
and
equitabl
e
date
on
whi
ch
the
respon
d
ents
m
u
st
vacate
the
l
and
u
n
d
er
the
c
i
rcumstances;
and
the
date
on
wh
i
ch
an
ev
i
ct
i
on
or
d
er
may
be
carr
i
ed
out
i
f
the
u
nlawful
occ
u
p
i
er
has
not
vacated
the
l
and
on
the date
so
determined.
[24]
My
v
i
ew
i
s
that
a
just
and
eq
u
i
tab
l
e
date
for
the
respondents
to
vacate
the
l
and
shou
l
d
be
as
soon
as
i
s
reasonably
poss
i
bl
e
.
The
respondents
have
only
just
moved
i
nto
the
an
d
.
The
first
occupat
i
on
happened
on
6
May
2
0
15
and
most
of
the
occupat
i
on
took
p
l
ace
after
that
date.
From
read
i
ng
the
respondents
papers
i
ndicat
i
ons
are
that
the
respondents
are
steadily
and
on
a
constant
bas
i
s
occ
u
py
i
ng
the
l
an
d
.
There
more
t
i
me
i
t
takes
for
the
respondents
to
vacate
the
l
and
the
more
chances
there
will
be
for
other
occupants
to
move
i
n
and
the
more
d
i
ff
i
cu
l
t
i
t
will
be
to
remove
the
m
.
I
am
therefore
of
the
op
i
n
i
on
that
i
t
i
s
just
and
equ
i
tab
l
e
that
the
respondents
vacate
the
l
and
w
i
th
i
n
1
5
days
from
date
of
th
i
s
order
and
that
they
be
ev
i
cted
by
the
sher
i
ff
on
30
J
u
ne
2
0
1
5
shou
l
d
they
fail
to
comply
with
thi
s
order.
[25]
I,
i
n
the
prem
i
ses,
make
the
follow
i
ng
or
d
er:
1.
The
applicat
i
on
i
s
granted
w
i
th
costs.
2.
The
respon
d
ents
are
or
d
ered
to
vacate
port
i
on
3
3
,
35
and
37
of
farm
448
Bokfontein
within
15
days
from
date
of
this
ord
er,
failing
which
the
Sheri
ff
for
the
d
i
str
i
ct
of
Br
i
ts
i
s
author
i
sed
to
remove
the
respon
d
ents
and
all
persons
under
the
i
r
contro
l
,
together
w
i
th
the
i
r
possess
i
ons
from
the
sa
i
d
l
and
on
30
J
u
ne
2
0
1
5.
E.M. KUBUSHI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
Appearances•
On
behalf
of
the
applicant: Adv.
S
Magaqa
I
nstructed
by:
COLLIN
NCIKI
AHORNEYS
191
Bekker
Road
Midrand
,
JOHANNESBURC
On
behalf
of
the
respondent:
Adv.
Tulk
I
nstructed
by:
THE
LEGAL
RESOURCES
CENTRE
1
5
Floor
Bramfischer
Towers
Marshall
Town,
JOHANNESBURG