About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Mbombela
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Mpumalanga High Court, Mbombela
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAMPMBHC 18
|
|
Edwin Construction (Pty) Ltd v Nkandla and Others (3784/2022) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 18 (2 April 2024)
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION,
MBOMBELA (MAIN SEAT)
CASE
NO: 3784/2022
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
DATE:
02/04/2024
SIGNATURE:
In
the matter between:
EDWIN
CONSTRUCTION (PTY) LTD
APPLICANT
and
MKHULU
MASANGO NKANDLA
1
ST
RESPONDENT
XOLANI
MTSWENI NKANDLA
2
ND
RESPONDENT
BONGINKOSI
MPOFU
3
RD
RESPONDENT
SAKHILE
SIBANYONI
4
TH
RESPONDENT
DUIKER
NKOSI
5
TH
RESPONDENT
KLAAS
MDLULI
6
TH
RESPONDENT
MANDLA
NKOSI
7
TH
RESPONDENT
MEMBERS
& SUPPORTS OF THE
FIRST
TO SEVENTH RESPONDENTS
8
TH
RESPONDENT
MPUMALANGA
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS,
ROADS
&
TRANSPORT
9
TH
RESPONDENT
THE
STATION COMMANDER OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
POLICE SERVICES, MASHISHING
10
TH
RESPONDENT
THE
STATION COMMANDER OF THE SOUTH
AFRICAN
POLICE SERVICES, LYDENBURG
11
TH
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
GUMEDE AJ
1.
The matter concerns an
application to interdict first to eight respondents from interfering
and/or disrupting construction work
of the applicant’s project.
2.
Applicant alleges that
between the period of 30 June 2022 to 5 September 2022, the
respondents unlawfully disrupted the construction
work of the
applicant by locking the gate to the site office of the applicant,
threatening, and intimidating the employees of the
applicant.
As a result, the applicant fears for the safety of its employees and
fears for the damage or destruction of its
equipment and
infrastructure. According to the applicant, the respondents’
demands were related to the rates payable to local
laborers, the
hiring of local plants and machinery for construction work and the
number of people hired from the local community.
3.
On 13 September 2022, a
rule nisi was granted, calling upon the respondents to show cause why
the respondents should not be interdicted.
4.
The respondents deny
any unlawful action on their part and allege that the instigators of
the alleged activities are the unidentified
employees of the
applicant who were involved in an unprotected strike. The
respondents allege that as part of the community,
they assisted the
applicant by acting as peacemakers and mediators during the strike
and held a meeting with the applicant and
its employees, resulting in
a settlement of the protest action.
5.
It is a trite principle
that the case for the applicants must be made in its founding
papers. The main difficulty with the
applicant’s case is
that it does not provide evidence of the identity of the
perpetrators. Without evidence, linking the
disruptions to the first
to eight respondents, this court cannot issue an interdict.
6.
To persuade this court
to accept that it was indeed the respondents who were the said
perpetrators, the applicant attached some
random photographs to the
replying affidavit, alleging that the said photographs were taken at
the site of the applicant’s
site during protests.
7.
These photographs do
not assist the applicant as they simply depict unknown people.
They do not display any kind of chaos
or violence as alleged. This
court has no way of knowing the identity of the individuals in these
photographs. Even if the
respondents were to admit that they
are indeed in the photographs, their version is that they are part of
the community and assisted
the applicant to broker a settlement with
its employees who were engaged in an unprotected strike.
8.
For the above reasons,
I am not satisfied that the applicant has made out a case against the
specified first to eight respondents.
9.
In the result, I make
the following order:
1.
the rule nisi that was
granted on 13 September 2022, is hereby discharged.
2.
The application is
dismissed with costs.
Z GUMEDE
Acting Judge of the
High Court
This judgment was
handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and/or
parties’ representatives by email. The date
and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 2 April 2024
APPEARANCES
For
the Applicant:
H
FOUIRE
Instructed
by:
Hatting
& Ndzabandzaba Attorneys
For
the Respondents
No
appearance
Date
of hearing:
31
August 2023
Date
of judgment:
2
April 2024