SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
Case No: 5453/2022
In the matter between:
CITY OF CAPE TOWN Applicant
and
RUSHKA HEARNE 1st Respondent
RIANNA REYNECKE 2nd Respondent
LOURENCIA MAKER 3rd Respondent
MICHELLE BRANDT 4th Respondent
BRENDA MURPHY 5th Respondent
DANIELLE DU PLOOY 6th Respondent
MICHELLE CLOETE 7th Respondent
BRADLEY JACOBS 8th Respondent
REMUS SAAIMAN 9th Respondent
ALL THOSE PERSON HOLDING TITLE 10th Respondent
UNDER THE FIRST TO NINTH RESPONDENTS
AND/OR UNLAWFULLY OCCUPYING ERVEN
4[...], 4[...], 4[...], 4[...], 4[...], 4[...],
4[...], 4[...] AND 4[...] BELHAR,
WESTERN CAPE
Date of hearing: 7 June 2024
Date of judgment: 10 September 2024
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY
PANGARKER, AJ
Introduction
1. The City of Cape Town seeks to evict various respondents and those
holding title under them from the Pentech -Belhar Housing Project (the project)
which is a low income housing project in Belhar, in terms of the provisions of the
Prevention of Illegal Evict ion from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of
1998 (the Act)1 . The application was brought in terms of section s 6 and 4 of the
Act.
2. While the application was initially brought against nine respondents and
their families, the first respondent had already vacated the unit by the time the
application was argued. The respondents who still occupy the units are the
second to eighth respondents, and Leonie Toll, who is identified as a tenth
1 The Act is commonly referred to as “the PIE Act”
respondent.
3. The application involves several affidavits, more than one City Housing
Report, affidavits from the successful beneficiaries of the units, and the record is
almost 880 pages long. I do not intend to detail each and every affidavit filed in
this matter so as to not overburden the judgment unnecessarily.
The City’s case
3. The City is the applicant and the owner of the land upon which the
Pentech housing project is developed. The City is an organ of State, and the
requirements of section 6 of the Act are applicable. To place the application in
context, it is important to note that the project involved 340 low income housing
units forming part of the Government’s housing subsidy programme which
commenced in 2007. The intention of the project was to provide low income
housing to qualifying persons in the areas of Bellville South, Ravensmead, Elsies
River and Belhar. The requirement in respect of the project was that qualifying
recipients of these units were to have applied for housing by the registering on
the City’s housing data base and undergoing a rigorous application process.
4. The evidence is that the City’s housing allocation policy was approved in
August 2009 and subsequently amended in 2013 and 2015, and it dictates the
applications and allocations for the completely built units in the project.
Furthermore, the project went through a public participation process and a
Project Steering Committee (PCS ) chosen by the communities in which the
beneficiaries came from, was established to assist in the process. The
requirement ultimately is that the beneficiary for a unit must have applied through
registration, whereafter an assessment process occurs and ve rification by the
City in terms of its housing allocation policy.
5. Construction of the units occurred in two phases in 2019. Firstly, 133 units
were completed and handed over to the qualifying beneficiaries in terms of the
housing allocation policy. Thereafter, 207 units built by a second contractor
experienced certain performance problems and by December 2021, only 101 of
the 207 units were completed. The remainder of the units 2 are still to be
completed. Significantly, in respect of the completed 101 units, 92 were fully
occupied and handed over to beneficiaries by December 2021, but the remaining
9 units had not yet been handed over at that stage due to incomplete electrical
infrastructure. It is these 9 units at the Pentech Belhar Housing Project which
form the subject matter of this application.
6. The City’s version is that the 9 housing units were unoccupied and despite
employing security services in order to curtail vandalism and invasion, the units
were nonetheless vandalised and invaded. Such incidents occurred between
January to April 2021 and a security company employed by the City could not
prevent these incidents from occurring with the result that the City’s law
enforcement unit was called in to assist but to l ittle effect as the vandalism
incidents continued.
7. On 16 May 2021, a crowd had gathered at Harvard Street in the Pentech
project and demanded that 9 families from the area be allowed to occupy these
units. It is common cause that the 9 families were no t on the list of approved
successful beneficiaries earmarked to receive and occupy these units. These 9
families were also unknown to the City and law enforcement then moved them
and their belongings from the units . However, on the same day, these persons
moved back and occupied the 9 units and remained in occupation thereof. These
occupants together with their families are thus the respondents cited in this
application and referred to above.
8. The City has, in its affidavits, provided a very detaile d explanation as to
how the qualifying process for low cost housing occurs. For purposes of the
2 106 housing units
judgment, I do not address it in so much detail . The respondents took no issue
with the process of allocation in their initial answering affidavits though they
address certain aspects in later affidavits filed herein. Suffice to point out at this
stage that the housing allocation process comprises the following steps:
application, selection, verification, vetting and finally, allocation.
9. Certain of initial b eneficiaries intended to occupy the Pentech units in
issue in this matter were eventually awarded housing elsewhere and as the
litigation progressed, other successful beneficiaries replaced those who were at
the outset meant to lawfully receive the Pentech housing units. The current
beneficiaries according to the City’s affidavits are:
Alec McDonald – registration date 31 August 1995
Moosa Abrahams – registration date 28 February 1996
Karel Juries – registration date 13 February 1996
George and Charmaine Witbooi – registration date 7 July 1999
Fiona van Zyl – registration date 20 July 1994
Marthinus Geswindt – registration date 26 January 1988
Errol Martheze – registration date 7 January 1991
Ellen Vearey – registration date 26 November 1991
10. From the above list, it is evident that some beneficiaries applied for
housing allocation as far back as 1988 and remain on the housing list, awaiting
their allocated units which they lawfully and properly applied for only to find that
the respondents occupy the units which are intended to be handed over to them.
Generally, these beneficiaries are longer on the housing list than the respondents
and some live in what can only be described as inhumane conditions. Mr Juries,
for example, is 57 years old and ha s been living and sleeping in a pipe in Belhar
for more than 20 years. He survives on the goodwill of the community and does
occasional jobs. Mr Abrahams lives in a household of 10 people and two of his
children have disabilities 3. To add, Mr Martheze is 55, unemployed and is
permanently disabled and should be using a wheelchair but is unable to do so as
he lives in a zinc structure unsuited to wheelchair access and use.
11. The deponent to the applicant’s founding affidavit is P hesheya Duke
Gumede, employed as Programme Manager for the City, District North, Area 1,
Human Settlements. Unless otherwise indicated, the reference to addresses and
street names below is a reference to streets in Belhar.
12. According to the City’s affidavits read with the admissions of the
respondents against whom the City seeks an eviction order , the latter have been
occupying the respective Pentech erven/units since at least 18 May 2021 when
they took occupation. They were all served with notices to vacate the respective
units but despite such notices, remain in occupation as at date of the application.
In the paragraph which follows, I set out some of the details related to the
respondents’ occupation of the units.
13. Riana Reynecke (second respon dent) occupies 1 [...] H[...] Street, and
previously lived at 4 [...] H[...] Street. Lorencia Maker (third respondent ),
occupies 1 [...] H[...] Street and had a fixed address at the time at 3 [...] J[...]
Street. Michelle Brandt (fourth respondent ), occupies 1 [...] H[...] Street and
had a prior fixed address at 3 [...] J[...] Street. Brenda Murphy (fifth
respondent), occupies 1[...] H[...] Street and had a fixed address and 5 [...] E[...]
3 Par 25.2, p602 - Mr Abrahams son is hearing impaired and his daughter has a spinal
complication
Drive. Danielle Du Plooy (sixth respondent ), occupies 1 [...] H[...] Street and
had a fixed address and pla ce of residence at 6 [...] A[...] Street, Extension 13.
Michelle Cloete (seventh respondent) resides at 3 [...] C[...] Street and lived in
Belhar previously. Bradley Jacobs (eighth respondent ), occupies 3 [...] C[...]
Street and had a fixed address at 3 [...] J[...] Street. Leonie Toll (tenth
respondent), occupies 3[...] C[...] Street and remains on occupation.
14. According to Mr Gumede, none of the respondents utilised the appeal
process in respect of the City’s housing allocation decision by appealing to the
City Manager in terms of clause 8.7 of the Allocation Policy read with section 62
of the Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000. It was argued quite vociferously during
the hearing, that the respondents are all unlawful occupiers who opportunistically
took occupation of the vacant Pentech units in May 2021.
15. Mr Gumede’s view is that to allow and approve of the respondents’
conduct would amount to a dangerous precedent which would have the effect of
rendering the entire housing programme “unworkable” and also underm ine the
legal and fair allocation of housing in terms of the City’s allocation policy 4. The
applicant’s states that it is the lawful owner of the land and the respondents have
jumped the queue by opportunistically taking occupation of the units.
16. Willie Desmond Jaftha is the Ward Councillor for Ward 12 which includes
Belhar and Ryan Thomas is the Project Manager in the City’s Human Settlement
Implementation Department. Both men confirm the correctness of Mr Gumede’s
affidavit insofar that it relat es to them. According to Mr Thomas, the Erven
occupied by these respondents are properties which were subdivided from the
mother plot, namely Erf 2 [...] Bellville5. The General Plan number 2188/2013 of
the remainder of Erf 2 [...] indicates the City’s owners hip of the Erven and it is
sated that the subdivided Erven are or were intended for transfer to the
4 Par 118, p32
5 Annexure B
successful beneficiaries once building work is completed and it is cleared for
transfer.
17. Riana Pretorius, the City’s Director: Informal Settlements, c onfirms that
the eviction notices and application was effected on Ms Toll at 3 [...] C[...] Street6.
Ms Pretorius indicates furthermore that the respondents have their own
accommodation and as they invaded the Pentech units en masse, they do not
qualify for emergency and alternative accommodation. Furthermore, her affidavit
confirms the respondents’ details, their occupation since May 2021 and that they
have neither the consent of the City nor any other right in law to occupy the
Pentech units. As for Ms Tol l, her previous residential address prior to the
occupation of the unit was 1[...] V[...] Street, Extension 23.
18. Mr Gumede and Ms Pretorius confirm that the respondents jumped the
queue, forcefully broke the law and invaded the almost completed units befor e
they could be handed over for occupation to the qualifying and deserving
beneficiaries. It is submitted that the beneficiaries qualified for the housing
properly in terms of the City’s housing allocation and that the respondents’
unlawful actions and con tinued unlawful occupation thus prejudice these
beneficiaries.
19. On behalf of the City, it is submitted that it will not be just and equitable to
offer these respondents alternative accommodation at the State’s expense as it
would be unfair to applican ts on the housing demand list but would also be
tantamount to rewarding illegal conduct. Although Ms Pretorius’ initial affidavit
indicates that the respondents did not approach the City with a view to seeking
alternative accommodation, as litigation progr essed, it is so that they completed
the necessary questionnaires regarding their personal circumstances and these
form part of the record in the matter.
6 RP8 – this reference is Ms Toll is not specifically cited but falls under the tenth respondent
The respondents’ opposition to the eviction application
20. In dealing with the opposition to the eviction application as contained in
the initial answering affidavits, I point out that the respondents’ version s as to
how they came to occupy the units are virtually identical. In summary, their
versions are that they were living either as backyard occupants in someone
else’s backyard or with family in wendy houses. They acknowledge that they
were not the successful beneficiaries for the Pentech units. All the respondents
acknowledge that they occupy the units intended for the successful beneficiaries
listed above.
21. The respondents admit that the City is the owner of the units which they
occupy. They were informed by City officials that the Pentech units would be
earmarked for the indigent in the area but according to them , people fr om
Kraaifontein and Wellington received the units. The respondents deny that they
forcefully attempted to occupy the units and explained that on 16 May 2021, the
community gathered in the Pentech streets, unhappy about the allocation of the
units. Mr Jafth a explained to them that the units belonged to the successful
beneficiaries on the housing allocation policy yet the respondents wished to know
why people outside the target area, being Belhar, were the recipients of the units.
At this juncture I point out that the City has explained that more than 60% of the
Pentech recipients are from the target area.
22. The respondents state that the units were unoccupied for about two years
and regularly vandalised and used for illegal activities. According to them, t he
security personnel tasked with protecting the units were unable to do so as the
vandalism was ongoing. On 16 May 2021, while the Pentech community and law
enforcement officials were out in the streets, the respondents rushed to the un -
occupied units: some stood in the doorway of each unit and others stood outside
the front door , seemingly intending to claim or appropriate the unit for
him/herself. The law enforcement officials then escorted them from units and out
of doorways , back into the streets . The respondents then decided to sleep
outside in the streets for two nights.
23. According to the respondents, Mr Gumede told them that they could not
sleep outside with their children and gave them permission to move into the units
but advised that they wer e not to inform anyone that he had given permission to
occupy, that the City was going to fix the vandalised houses and that he would
assist them in obtaining houses in Delft. Mr Gumede visited each of the
respondents individually and, according to them, p romised to return, regarding
the Delft accommodation.
24. The respondents state that Mr Gumede never returned as promised while
Mr Jaftha brought various beneficiaries to see the units. It also seem s from the
answering affidavits that the respondents hel d a view that the occupation by
consent was a temporary arrangement until Mr Gumede returned to advise them
regarding housing in Delft.
25. The respondents state that they took occupation of the units out of
desperation. While they admit that they are unlawful occupants, they nonetheless
persist with an argument that they were given consent to occupy. As for the right
of appeal regarding the allocations and/or housing policy, the respondents state
that they were not aware of this right of appeal to the City Manager.
26. The further defence, if it can be called that, is that the City demonstrated
its consent that the respondents may occupy the units by its provision of water
metres and water to each property, refuse bins for each unit and appointing a
contractor to effect repairs to the units whereafter the respondents were handed
the keys to the units (by the contractor).
27. The respondents further complain that there was no attempt to mediate
the eviction matter amicably. Furthermore, all the respondents admit that th ey
were unhappy about their living conditions which included cramped living space,
and living in wendy houses which leaked during winter. While they ask the Court
for forgiveness for occupying the properties in the manner in which they did in
that the unit s were earmarked for beneficiaries, they emphasise that they have
made lives in these units and that their children attend school in the area. They
question where they and their families would go if evicted, and state that the
beneficiaries’ right to housi ng is no greater than theirs. They seek a dismissal of
the application with costs due to the absence of a housing report.
The City’s reply and further affidavit
28. Mr Gumede denies that the beneficiaries are from Wellington and
Kraaifontein and confi rms that they are from Ravensmead, Bellville , Bellville
South and Elsies River. He denies that the units were unoccupied for
approximately two years and states that there were only vacant from December
2020 to May 2021 after the 92 units were handed over t o beneficiaries. Mr
Gumede furthermore denies stating that the respondents could enter the units
and indicates quite clearly that he has or had no authority to give consent to the
respondents to occupy the City’s property. He explained to them that legal
consequences would flow were they to occupy illegally and should they not
vacate voluntarily. He denies saying that the houses would be fixed and that he
would get back to them.
29. Mr Gumede clarifies that what he had said was that the respondents coul d
apply for houses in Delft. He confirms visiting each of the respondents in order to
obtain their details to determine whether they were on the housing needs
database of the City. In addition, while he admits not returning to the
respondents, he reiterates that he had explained that they were illegal occupiers.
In his view there was/is no basis for deviation from the housing policy. The
Pentech project is a Breaking New Ground (BNG) project 7. As for the
7 Par 41, p268
respondents, the City maintains in reply that none of them offer a valid defence in
law, that they are illegal occupiers and that mediation would fail as they persist
with the illegal occupation of the City’s property. At the time of deposing to his
replying affidavit, the respondents had not provided information regarding their
personal circumstances.
30. In his further affidavit deposed to as a result of the extensive engagement
process between the City and the respondents, Mr Gumede details the
respondents’ personal details. Furthermore, the indication is that the engagement
between the parties points to the respondents being of the view that they are
entitled to remain in occupation until they aree provided with similar housing
opportunities as those they occupy in Pentech.
31. As for the beneficiaries, during December 2022 the eight successful
beneficiaries were re -allocated by agreement with the Ward Councillor to
completed units in the development. 8 It is submitted on behalf of the City that a
circumstance of the respondents’ continued occupation of the units which are to
be awarded to successful beneficiaries, is that the beneficiaries are longer on the
housing allocation register than the respondent s. Furthermore, Mr Gumede
denies that the appointment of a contractor to attend to repairs to the units, and
similarly the provision of utilities and a water supply, constitute the City’s consent
to the respondents to occupy and remain in the units.
The respondents’ supplementary affidavits
32. Pursuant to the City’s May 2024 housing report, the respondents delivered
supplementary affidavits. The May report earmarked the Leonsdale site for
allocation of units to house the respondents in this matter shou ld the Court grant
an eviction order and find that the respondents needed emergency
8 Par 45, p388
accommodation9. The final City report was filed in June 2024 report prior to the
hearing.
33. The respondents all filed supplementary affidavits which yet again
addresses the events of May 2021 and how they came to occupy the units. I
must state that several paragraphs in these affidavits are spent addressing the
affidavit of Mr Gumede 10. While the content of these paragraphs in the
supplementary affidavits do not specifically refer to paragraphs in Mr Gumede’s
reply, on my reading, what they purport to do is in fact to reply or address Mr
Gumede’s replying affidavit, and in doing that, provide a further response akin to
what may be described as “a second bite at the cherry”.
34. In my view, aside from addressing their personal circumstances and
providing an update regarding alternative accommodation, the supplementary
affidavits do not take the respondents’ opposition any further and effectively
amounts to an abo ut-turn on certain admissions already made in the answering
affidavit. In this regard, I agree with the City’s submission that a slightly different
case emerges when regard is had to the further affidavits of the respondents.
However, my view remains that the respondents’ admission of unlawful
occupation as set out in the answering affidavit cannot be ignored.
Are the respondents unlawful occupiers?
35. The respondents’ defence to the eviction application is to allege that they
had Mr Gumede’s consent and permission to occupy the units and relied on such
consent. The second part of the defence is that by providing them , as occupants,
with the keys to the units, sending contractors to fix the vandalised sections of
the units, and handing over refuse bins and providing a water supply, the City
indicated its consent that they may remain in the units.
9 Pages 68-685
10 See for example, Ms Maker’s affidavit, pages 703-708
36. In the supplementary affidavits, this stance is repeated except that the
respondents then seem to allude, in what I view as a vague and oblique manner,
that because Mr Gumede was later suspended in relation to the Hangberg
housing project, therefore there must be merit in their version that he provided
them with consent to occupy the Pentech units even if he may not have had the
necessary authority to do so at the time . The submissions on behalf of the
respondents regarding consent were persisted with during argument, and it was
advanced on the respondents’ behalf that only after Mr Gumede made the
promises, which the respondents relied up on, did they collect their belongings
from their previously occupied accommodation or residences, and move it into
the units.
37. The City maintains the denial of consent, not only in the answering
affidavit but in Mr Gumede’s further affidavit. In my vi ew, the respondents’
version of consent is problematic because even if, for argument’s sake , Mr
Gumede gave permission to occupy the City’s property, he was not authorised to
do so because a public official cannot lawfully act beyond the confines of his
power as prescribed by law, as stated in Merifon (Pty) Ltd v Greater Letaba
Municipality and Another11:
“[1] The doctrine of legality and the rule of law lie at the heart of the
Constitution.12 There are numerous reported decisions of our courts that
have unequivocally affirmed the fundamental truism that the exercise of
public power derives from the law . Accordingly, no organ of state or public
official may act contrary to or beyond the scope o f their powers as laid
down in the law. 13 This is one of the foundational values of our
11 2023 (1) SA 408 (SCA) - I have retained the footnotes as per the judgment in the above
paragraphs of the SCA judgment in Merifon
12 Section 1(c) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996.
13 Affordable Medicines Trust and Others v Minister of Health and Another [2005] ZACC 3; 2006
(3) SA 247 (CC); 2005 (6) BCLR 529 (CC) para 49 and paras 75 to 77; Albutt v Centre for the
Study of Violence and Reconciliation and Others [2010] ZACC 4; 2010 (3) SA 293 (CC); 2010 (2)
constitutional democracy.
[2] In Nyathi v Member of the Executive Council for the Department of
Health Gauteng and Another [2008] ZACC 8; 2008 (5) SA 94 (CC); 2008
(9) BCLR 865 (CC) Madala J aptly put it thus:
'Certain values in the Constitution have been designated as foundational
to our democracy. This in turn means that as pillar -stones of this
democracy, they must be observed scrupulously. If these values are not
observed and their precepts not carried out conscientiously, we have a
recipe for a constitutional crisis of great magnitude. In a state predicated
on a desire to maintain the rule of law, it is imperative that one and all
should be driven by a moral obli gation to ensure the continued survival of
our democracy.'14
[3] Almost ten years previously, in Fedsure Life Assurance Ltd and
Others v Greater Johannesburg Transitional Metropolitan Council and
Others 1999 (1) SA 374 (CC);1998 (12) BCLR 1458 (CC), the
Constitutional Court was even more emphatic in underscoring the principle
of legality. The Court said the following:
'[A] local government may only act within the powers lawfully conferred
upon it. There is nothing startling in this proposition - it is a f undamental
principle of the rule of law, recognised widely, that the exercise of public
power is only legitimate where lawful. The rule of law - to the extent at
least that it expresses this principle of legality - is generally understood to
be a fundamental principle of constitutional law.'15”
SACR 101 (CC); 2010 (5) BCLR 391 (CC) para s 49-50; Electronic Media Network Limited and
Others v e.tv (Pty) Limited and Others [2017] ZACC 17; 2017 (9) BCLR 1108 (CC) paras 25, 110 -
112; Minister of Constitutional Development and Another v South African Restructuring and
Insolvency Practitioners Association and Others [2018] ZACC 20; 2018 (5) SA 349 (CC); 2018 (9)
BCLR 1099 (CC) paras 27-29.
14 Paragraph 80.
15 Paragraph 56 (Citations omitted).
(footnotes retained)
(my emphasis)
38. From the above, it is apparent therefore that Mr Gumede, as a public
official for the City, had no authority to promise or allow the respondents or any
other persons to occupy the City’s property. Having regard to the various
affidavits filed in this matt er, and notwithstanding Mr Gumede’s suspension in
relation to a matter totally unrelated to this eviction and the Pentech project, I am
more inclined to accept his version that he gave no permission to the
respondents to occupy the units. I say this becaus e in the original answering
affidavits all the respondents admit that they are indeed unlawful occupants, that
they were aware that the houses were earmarked for successful beneficiaries on
the housing list , that they knew they had no right to occupy and t hey sought
forgiveness for their actions. Thus, the recognition that their actions were
unlawful was prevalent from the outset of their involvement in this litigation , and
in my view, must also have been present when they physically occupied the
units.
39. Furthermore, I must agree with the City’s submission that even if Mr
Gumede gave the respondents the green light on 18 May 2021 to occupy the
units, or they understood his words to mean that consent was given, he lacked
the required authority as a public official to provide consent as it was beyond his
power to do so but also because legislation regulates the allocation of housing
units to lawful beneficiaries 16. In addition, the submission that the City is
estopped from denying that Mr Gumede granted consent is also not sustainable
because estoppel cannot be raised as a defence to an unlawful action . In other
words, estoppel cannot be used to make legal what would otherwise be illegal or
not permitted in law 17. Thus, it is not a defence availab le to the respondents in
respect of the averment and submission that Mr Gumede or Mr Jaftha gave the
16 Housing report, p404-417; Merifon supra
17 Trust Bank van Afrika Bpk v Eksteen 1964 (3) SA 402 (A)
respondents consent to occupy the units, as they were not authorised to provide
consent.
40. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the defence of cons ent is
unsustainable and must fail. There is a further aspect to this defence which must
be emphasised and that is that if any suggested c onsent or permission were
granted by Mr Gumeded or Mr Jaftha , it was in any even revoked once the City
gave notice of its eviction application to the occupiers, and therefore such
purported consent came to an end , with the result that t he respondents had no
right in law to continue to occupy the City’s property. In this regard, it is apparent
from the judgment in Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v
Thubelitsha Homes and Others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions
and Another, Amici Curiae)18, that the City has the authority to revoke consent:
“Has the City revoked its consent?
[157] All of this does not however mean that the owner’s consent is
irrevocable. The residents have never asserted any right to occupy other
than the consent of the owner. They accept that there was no contractual
obligation which binds the City to allow the o ccupiers to reside in Joe
Slovo in perpetuity. In argument, the residents sought to persuade us that
the legal nature of their right of occupation is an equivalent of the common
law precarium which is possession or occupation which may be
terminated at an y time. It is, however, unnecessary, for the purposes of
this case to characterise this right of occupation any wider than being a
right to occupy with the express or tacit consent of the owner of the land in
question and which may be terminated by the st ate organ concerned
subject to its constitutional obligations in relation to providing access to
adequate housing.”
18 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC) par 157
(footnote omitted)
(my emphasis)
41. As for the revocation of consent, there is no issue that the respondents all
received via the Sheriff, notices to vacate the units and that the procedural
requirements of the PIE Act were complied with. The conclusion therefore, is that
any consent, such as there may have been, was revoked at the end of January
2022 once the section 4 notices were served. However, my view remains that
having regard to the first three sets of affidavits in this matter, the City’s version
that no consent was given by its official to take occupation and remain, is the
more probable version, and in that instance, the au thority of Merifon makes it
clear that a public official cannot act beyond his authority.
42. In view of the above findings, the defence regarding consent must fail. The
defences relating to the provision of refuse bins, keys provided by the contractors
and provision of water and utilities, can be easily dispensed with: there can be
nothing untoward about the City appointing a contractor to fix problems and
attend to repair work on the units as a result of vandalism which occurred prior to
the respondents’ occupation of the units. I accept the City’s explanation the keys
were handed over by the community liaison officer for fear of the respondents
breaking the locks to gain entry to the units. The provision of water and utilities at
the units cannot be see n as granting some form of consent to occupy as these
are utilities and benefits available to persons living in the low cost housing
project. In this regard, I agree with the City’s counsel that the respondents
benefitted from these services through their occupation of the units.
43. In my view, the City’s explanation as to why the keys were handed over
once repairs were effected by the contractor is a reasonable explanation. The
City took account of the respondents’ conduct which, in my view, was to leave
their residences because they were, for want of a better term, fed up with their
circumstances, overcrowded residences and leaking wendy houses and acted in
an opportunistic manner by entering and appropriating for the mselves, the
Pentech units.
44. While there is no evidence that they forcefully or with violence entered the
units, the respondents describe that they stood in doorways and in front of
entrances to these units and were moved away by law enforcement officials. In
my view, their condu ct was indicative of persons who were motivated by
opportunism, intending to stake their claim to the units earmarked for successful
beneficiaries and in so doing, jumping the queue on the City’s housing allocation
list. The evidence and their admissions certainly indicate that they knew that they
were acting unlawfully and that the units were intended for other persons.
45. Given their actions, and their admissions that they were unlawful
occupants, fully knowledgeable that the units belonged to the City and were to be
handed over to beneficiaries, it was reasonable for the City to expect that the
respondents would take the law into their own hands and find a way to access
the units once the contractor had finalised the repairs. The decision to hand over
the keys in order to prevent vandalism, out of an abundance of caution, therefore
cannot be seen to mean that the City consented to the respondents’ occupation
or gave them permission to occupy the units.
46. The averments and submissions that the respon dents somehow did the
City a favour by occupying the properties which had been vandalised while
remaining unoccupied, is self -defeating. The fact is that the respondents acted
unlawfully; they had no consent of the owner, the City, to occupy the units, and
they did so knowing that the units were not allocated to them and that it was to
be handed over to lawful beneficiaries, yet this did not deter them. They left
existing residences as backyard dwellers to appropriate housing units to which
they had no right in law to occupy.
47. Furthermore, the fact that some beneficiaries who originally were meant to
receive the units were, in time, provided housing elsewhere and other lawful,
successful beneficiaries were moved up the proverbial housing queue in no way
convinces me that the respondents have a lawful defence and/or were justified in
their actions. It is evident from the affidavits filed together with the various City
housing reports that the respondents were not amongst the people who were
earmarked for the Pentech units which form the subject of this application. In the
result, the defences raised in the respondents’ affidavits are dismissed.
48. The remaining issues raised in the supplementary affidavits relating to Mr
Gumede and the Executive Mayor’s involvement in the matter, media reports and
the idea that the respondents are to be made an example of, in my view, do
nothing to detract from the important questions in this case. F irstly, whether the
respondents are unlawful occupiers as defined in the Act, and secondly, whether
it is just and equitable to evict them and all those who hold title under them? The
first question, in my view, is that the respondents and all those holding title under
them, are indeed unlawful occupiers as defined by section 1 of the Act as they
have no right in law to occupy the Pentech units nor the City’s consent to occupy.
I turn now to answer the second question.
The “just and equitable” consideration
49. The eviction application was brought in terms of section 6 read with
section 4 of the Act. In terms of section 6(1)(a) and (b), which applies to evictions
at the instance of an organ of State, the Court may only grant an eviction order if:
49.1 it is just and equitable to do so;
49.2 after considering all relevant circumstances; and if
49.3 the consent of the applicant is required for the erection of a building
or structure on that land or for the occupation of the land, and the
unlawful occupier is occupying a building or structure on the land
without such consent having been obtained; or
49.4 it is in the public interest to grant such an order.
50. Section 6(3) sets out the factors which the Court must have regard to in
determining whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order in favour of
the organ of State. These factors are: the circumstances under which the
unlawful occupier occupied the land and erected the building or struc ture; the
period of occupation by the unlawful occupier and family, and the availability to
the unlawful occupier of suitable alternative accommodation.
51. Section 6 envisages an exercise of the Court’s discretion but the
discretion, in my view, must be cognisant of the occupiers’ interests and
circumstances, especially “broader considerations of fairness and other
constitutional values, so as to produce a just and equitable result” .19 In view of
these prescripts, I reiterate that it has already been foun d above that all the
remaining respondents and those holding under them are unlawful occupiers.
52. Having regard to the provisions of section 6, the facts indicate that none of
the respondents erected any structures or buildings on the Pentech land and
having found that they have (and had) no consent to occupy, my further finding is
that the respondents have been unlawfully occupying the units since at least 18
May 2021, when they commenced their occupation.
53. As for the circumstances under which the y occupied, this was addressed
above under the preceding heading. Turning then to a consideration of “all
relevant circumstances”, firstly I note from the various reports filed by the City,
which have been updated, as well as the affidavits by Ms Pretorius and Mr
Cader, the respondents’ legal representative, that there was indeed engagement
19 Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 (1) SA 217 (CC) par 36
between the parties and that the respondents provided details of their
circumstances as per their supplementary affidavits, which I summarise below:
Riana Reynecke
Ms Reynecke occupies the unit with six others including four minor daughters,
her unemployed sister and her minor son. She is the head of the household and
receives a SASSA grant of R350 p/m and social security grants of R520 p/m per
child for th ree children. Her sister similarly receives grants for herself and her
child. Ms Reynecke has asthma for which she receives treatment. In her affidavit
she states that she used to reside with her parents and siblings, but due to her
brother’s drug use and violence, the situation became intolerable and she cannot
return to the property which also houses tenants.
Lorencia Maker
The total household income for herself, partner and four children was R6140 p/m,
and expenses are R4187 p/m . One child attained majority; the respondent is
unemployed and her partner Mr Filies, works casually in the building industry. As
at May 2024, Ms Maker alleged that she only receives three SASSA grants x
R520 p/m p/child plus Mr Filies’ wage of R600 p/week. She cannot return to her
previous place of residence at 3[...] J[...] Street.
Michelle Brandt
She cannot retu rn to the backyard where she previously lived as the wendy
house which she occupied was removed and a separate entrance was built on
the owner’s property. Her efforts at finding other backyard accommodation have
proved fruitless as owners do not wish to ac cept occupants with children. She
does not have the finances to afford rental. Ms Brandt is employed as a cleaner
in N1 City; her husband and adult daughter are unemployed and her son (17
years) is in Grade 10 at B [...] High School. Her granddaughter is five years old.
After deductions she earns R3800-R4000 per month, plus two SASSA grants per
month.
Brenda Murphy
The wendy house she used to reside in was removed and the owners of the
property wish to build on their plot. Thus , the backyard is no lon ger available to
her. Her efforts at finding alternative accommodation are the same as Ms
Brandt’s. She is divorced. Her son Bradley no longer lives with her but lives in
Atlantis and contributes to her expenses. The other son Brandon is employed as
an in tern20. Her grandson attends a school within walking distance of the unit
which she occupies. She describes herself as “effectively disabled” due to
various operations on her foot. She intends to apply for a disability grant as
advised by her doctor. The monthly income from Brandon is R3200 p/m plus a
SASSA grant of R350.
Danielle du Plooy
The wendy house in which Ms Du Plooy lived prior to taking occupation in the
Pentech unit was removed and her efforts at obtaining accommodation in a
backyard proved unsuccessful as rental at R2000 - R3000 per month is
unaffordable. Ms Du Plooy is separated from her spouse, uses a crutch and
explains that s he can hardly walk. She underwent a total hip replacement more
than 20 years ago and receives a disability grant of R1700 per month. She is
originally from Makhanda in the Eastern Cape but due to gangsterism in the
area, relocated to Belhar where she live s for the past 26 years. Her adult son is
employed and her daughter is unemployed. Her grandson (2 years old) also lives
with her.
2020 No details are provided; see par 16, p817
Michelle Cloete
Ms Cloete is 50 years old and lives with her partner Herman and three adult
children, aged between 22 to 32 years, and three grandchildren. None of the
family members are employed. The respondent and her partner each receive
R350 SASSA grants per month. She cannot afford rental for alternative
accommodation.
Bradley Jacobs
Mr Jacobs investigations regarding his erstwhile backyard accommodation
follows along the same lines as those of Ms Du Plooy. He cannot afford the
rental of over R2000 per month for new accommodation. Mr Jacobs occupies the
unit with his unemployed wife. H e is a security officer, earning a maximum of
R2200 per month, plus two SASSA grants for the two children and will apply for
another SASSA grant for the other child. The twins attend a school in Belhar and
Mr Jacobs has lived in the area for more than 30 years.
Leonie Toll21
Ms Toll occupies the unit with three minor children for whom she receives
SASSA grants of R350 p /m per child. At paragraph 19 of her questionnaire, she
states that her partner also receives a SASSA grant. She indicates in her
answering affidavit that she would have no choice but to move to her mother’s
residence if evicted.
54. On consideration of averments made by the respondents and completion
of their questionnaires and the content of their affidavits, it is apparent that t hey
all allege that they would be rendered homeless if evicted and that their previous
accommodation, which they left in May 2021 to occupy the Pentech units, are
21 Questionnaire dated 10 March 2023, p144-148
either no lo nger available or the rental is too steep and thus unaffordable.
Furthermore, the respondents take issue that some units are allocated to people
who, according to them, are either not indigent or should not be occupying units
as they have other accommodati on. Insofar as the Leonsdale alternative
emergency housing site is concerned, the respondents say that they would be
living in a gang infested area, the children would not be close to their schools and
would be exposed to an unsafe area. All the respondent s suggest a move to to
other areas in Belhar apparently owned by the City.
55. All the respondents have been in unlawful occupation for more than three
years as at the date of this judgment, and a year at the time when the application
was instituted. The respondents all make averments that they would be rendered
homeless should an eviction order be granted but this averment requires closer
scrutiny, having regard to the questionnaires, the supplementary affidavits and
housing reports.
56. Ms Reynecke’s daughter attained the age of majority yet no further details
regarding her employment is provided. Furthermore, Ms Reyn ecke applied in
2019 for a housing subsidy from a private purchaser but by the time this was
approved, the sale was concluded with som eone else. Aside from the reference
to receiving grants, she provides no further financial information and Ms Pretorius
of the City raises a legitimate concern that Ms Reynecke was able to qualify in
2020 for a housing subsidy, thus it begs the question as to whether she indeed
has access to a source of income or funding. She has not addressed this aspect,
but it is noted that she applied for RDP housing. In my view, Ms Reynecke has
not disclosed her full financial circumstances, and he nce, the possibility exists
that she may be able to afford or access alternative accommodation. My finding
is that an eviction would not render her homeless. However, in an abundance of
caution and having regard to section 26 of the Constitution and the Ci ty’s role in
providing alternative housing, I am of the view that should the respondent face
being rendered homeless, then she should be provided with emergency housing
or an emergency housing kit.
57. Ms Maker has a source of income and her partner is employed. While Ms
Pretorius points out that the income threshold for this household exceeds the
threshold for an emergency kit, which is R5000, I note that Ms Maker indicates in
her supplementary affidavit that she only receives grants for the children. There
is no indication of family members in the area who can accommodate her and
her family, yet she was able to afford rental before the unlawful occupation.
Having regard to the documents filed plus the submissions, the possibility of
alternative accommo dation exists but, in the event, that the respondent is
unsuccessful, she would be required to notify the City should emergency housing
be needed.
58. Ms Brandt is the only breadwinner in her household and in addition to her
salary, the household expenses are supplemented by grants. Having regard to
the averments in the first housing report, I disagree with the City that the
respondent is in a position to find alternative accommodation. In my view, an
eviction order would render her and her family homeles s and thus the City would
be required to provide her and the family with an emergency housing kit where
she is placed in a position to erect the kit on private land or emergency housing
is to be provided for her at the Leonsdale site.
59. Ms Murphy receives a contribution from a son who works in the Western
Cape Provincial Government, but she fails to disclose his contribution. I also
question how her initial expenses of more than R4000 are paid. She is effectively
disabled, as she states, and would apply for a disability yet the impression is that
she is funded or supported by her sons, to a degree unknown to the Court. In my
view, the financial disclosure is found wanting and the possibility of alternative
accommodation indeed exists. She also does not address whether she is able to
be accommodated by her family members.
60. Ms Du Plooy’s physical condition is a concern in that she states that she
can hardly walk. That said, her questionnaire indicates a monthly income of
almost R9500 per m onth. In her supplementary affidavit, she does not disclose
her son’s contribution to the joint household income . In my view, the averments
together with the financial detail indicate that the possibility of securing
alternative accommodation cannot be excluded.
61. Ms Cloete’s details are sparse. No indication is given why the adult
children are unemployed and/or whether they are (even informally) contributing
to the household expenses. She also takes care of her sister’s disabled child who
is an adult. It is unknown whether a disability grant is received for her nephew.
With what seems to be a meagre financial situation, the possibility of
homelessness exists if evicted. In the circumstances , the respondent and her
family should be provided with emergency accommodation.
62. Mr Jacobs is employed, though his income and expenses seem to be
equal. In my view there does not seem to be funds available for alternative
accommodation and Mr Jacobs and his family should be afforded an emergency
housing kit to erect on private land or be accommodated at the Leonsdale site.
63. Ms Toll’s financial position is also dire but she has indicated that she
would move to her mother, hence, there exists alternative accommodation for her
and her family.
64. Having regard to the housing reports, the personal circumstances of the
respondents, the affidavits and considering the submissions, I do not share the
City’s view that it can or should be concluded that because the respondents have
not made a full disclos ure, such disclosure must be construed as being
deliberate. Certainly, questions arise in respect of certain of the respondents, as I
set out above, but I am not in a position, in all fairness, to conclude that there is a
deliberate non-disclosure of perso nal information. Ultimately, the questionnaires
must be read with the respondents’ affidavits and the concerns raised by Ms
Pretorius, as I have attempted to do. At best, the majority of the respondents face
the looming possibility of homelessness but it c annot be excluded, looking at
certain non-disclosures regarding income and accommodation by relatives, that
there may well be a possibility of the respondents being able to secure
alternative accommodation themselves.
65. This brings me to the City’s su bmission that an eviction order be granted
without providing alternative accommodation for the reasons that the
respondents refuse to find alternative accommodation and left their initial
residences to take over the Pentech units, thus the spectre of homel essness
does not arise. I cannot agree with the City’s submission on this aspect. In my
view, the determination of homelessness if an eviction order is granted in this
case must be made at the time or prior to the time that the order is to be granted ;
in other words, at this stage of the proceedings where the Court is about to grant
an order. Casting a look back at the respondents’ situation as it was in May 2021
is but a factor in the just and equitable exercise but not , in my view, in the
determination o f whether the respondents are now able to secure alternative
accommodation. I say this because f rom the facts, the ir circumstances have
changed and I have to consider such changes as I do above. Thus, in the event
that it is so that an eviction order is gr anted, the City is required to provide
emergency housing to such respondents, having regard to the various authorities
which both counsel referred me to.
66. I have had regard to the submissions by the respondents’ counsel that it is
not just and equitable to evict the respondents based on the finding in
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Another v Various Occupiers,
Eden Park Extension 5 22. In this matter, the respondents also resorted to self -
help, but in w eighing up the just and equitable exercise, the SCA held that the
Municipality’s housing policy was compromised, but more importantly, the
22 [2013] ZASCA 162
respondents were given the assurance that they would be prioritised on the
housing allocation list but were not 23. Th ese findings resulted in the SCA
dismissing the appeal of the Municipality.
67. In my view, Ekurhuleni may be distinguished from this matter. The
respondents in this matter were not given assurances that they would be
prioritised on the City’s housing lis t and the reasons why they were not allocated
for housing in Pentech is set out in detail in the housing reports , which
explanation is reasonable and understandable . The allocations were clearly not
randomly done and the City’s detailed and thorough explan ation of how the
allocations are done, is accepted. The respondents, it must be remembered, also
took no issue at all with the housing allocations in their answering affidavits and
accepted the process, yet d id an about turn later in the matter in their
supplementary affidavits, by questioning why other persons are accommodated
in the Pentech project, whom in their view, should not be beneficiaries of such
units.
68. Having considered the respondents’ submissions, i n my view, Ekurhuleni
cannot be relied upon for a finding that it is not just and equitable to evict the
respondents because of an unfair or inconsistent housing policy for the reason
set out above . Whilst I have read and considered the housing policy and
allocation process during the course of preparing this judgment, there is no need
to address or dissect it further herein.
69. Returning to s ection 6(3) of the Act: it requires a consideration of all
relevant circumstances. Most of those circumstances relate to the respondents,
but I need to sound a reminder that the actions of these respondents in helping
themselves in May 2021 to housing units about to be allocated to beneficiaries
who have been on the City’s waiting list for as far back as 1988, seriously
prejudiced the beneficiaries. They were the successful beneficiaries of these
23 Ekurhuleni supra Para 27-29
units, some of whom have been waiting for more than 20 years for suitable low -
cost housing subsidised by the City, only to have it snatched away from them by
the respondents who took occupation unlawfully.
70. While I have great empathy for the respondents who found themselves in
inconvenient, crowded accommodation prior to 16 May 2021, the fact is that they
were indeed housed, some in wendy houses and living in someone’s backyard.
They were not, like two beneficiaries referred to above, living for years in a pipe
and sleeping on a mattress or living in a zinc structure without the use of a much
needed wheelchair. These beneficiaries have already been severely prejudiced
by the interminable wait and delay in receiving their houses or units, and the
continued occupation by the respondents of units intended for them, prolongs the
prejudice and the ultimate indignity they suffer daily.
71. The beneficiaries’ circumstances as submitted by the City are equally
important and they, too, have a constitutionally entrenched right to housing which
has remained unfulfilled . The fact that the City accom modated the initial
beneficiaries elsewhere and that other beneficiaries, who are longer on the
waiting list are the recipients of these units, is not a factor which militates against
a finding that it is just and equitable to evict the respondents and those who hold
under them.
72. Having regard to all relevant circumstances, and balancing of interests, I
thus find that it is indeed just and equitable to grant an eviction order against the
second to eighth respondents, and Ms Leonie Toll, and all those persons holding
title under them. Having regard to the entire matter, to hold otherwise would be
tantamount to giving the respondents and others who are like -minded, the
sanction to jump the housing allocation queue above beneficiaries who went
through a proper process and are longer on the waiting list for low cost housing.
It would furthermore be a sign of approv al of unlawful conduct and unlawful
occupation, which is not what the Act allows.
Alternative emergency housing
73. Some respondents who cannot find alternative would by necessity have to
be accommodated with emergency housing by the Cit y. However, t he
respondents cannot demand that the City provides them with alternative
accommodation in Belhar or in areas where they wish to move to, and this has
been held to be the case in City of Cape Town v Commando and Others24:
“[53] For this contention to withstand scrutiny, a source of the duty had to
be identified. The legislative measures and programmes taken by the
government giving effect to s 26 of the Constitution do not impose a duty
on it to provide temporary emergency accomm odation at a specific
locality. Nor have the line of cases since Grootboom interpreted the duties
flowing from s 26 to oblige the government to provide emergency housing
at a specific location. In fact, the opposite has been suggested. In
Thubelisha, Ngcobo J observed that ‘the Constitution does not guarantee
a person a right to housing at government expense at the locality of his or
her choice. Locality is determined by a number of factors including the
availability of land. However, in deciding on the loc ality, the government
must have regard to the relationship between the location of residents and
their places of employment’.”
(footnote excluded)
74. The proposed temporary relocation site (TRA) in Leonsdale is in terms of
the City’s amended offer25. Having regard to the site, it is surrounded by Epping,
Elsies River and Parow, about 11 km from the Pentech site and about 3.3km
from Voortrekker Road, which is a busy main road, and it runs off Halt Road,
24 [2023] ZASCA 7
25 May 2024 report
which is the main road in Elsies River. Having regard to the amended offer and
report, it is apparent that Leonsdale is close to commercial hubs on Voortrekker
Road and Elsies River, accessible to public transport and schools in the area, as
well as a variety of local grocery stores and larger supermarkets26.
75. As for the proposed emergency kit, the units measure 18 square metre,
which is anything but ideal. Unfortunately, the harsh reality of an eviction
especially at the instance of an organ of State such a s the City , brings to bear
that the available suitable emergency accommodation would be far less than
what a respondent is used to at the Pentech units 27. I was informed that the City
is amenable to considering providing material to erect a larger unit or provide two
emergency housing kits, on application by the respondents.
76. In conclusion, I have had regard to the facts and circumstances of this
matter, and in determining a just and equitable date for the respondents’ eviction ,
I take account that the City requires a lead time of three months to break ground
and start construction on the Leonsdale site which is also intended to house
people involved in another matter. Furthermore, there are minor children who
currently attend school, hence the perio d determined to vacate the units would
be sufficient so as to not interrupt their schooling year.
77. I am satisfied that the City has fulfilled its Constitutional mandate in its
current amended offer to the respondents. In the event that it unfortunately
becomes necessary to carry out an eviction order, such execution must be
performed with the necessary regard to the dignity of the respondents, their
families, the elderly and disabled. Lastly, costs have not been pursued in this
matter and rightfully so, as the respondents are represented pro bono.
Order
26 Aerial photograph, p684 depicts the surrounding areas to Leonsdale
27 Trustees for the time being of the PGW Trust and 2 Others v NW and 3 Others, WCHC case
no. 87/2023, Holderness AJ delivered on 31 January 2014, par 115
1. The second to eighth respondents, Leonie Toll (tenth respondent) and all
those holding title under them are ordered to vacate the following units at
Belhar Pentech Housing Project on or before 6 January 2025:
1.1 Erf 4[...] Belhar situated at 1[...] H[...] Street, Belhar;
1.2 Erf 4[...] Belhar situated at 1[...] H[...] Street, Belhar;
1.3 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 1[...] H[...] Street, Belhar;
1.4 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 1[...] H[...] Street, Belhar;
1.5 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 1[...] H[...] Street, Belhar;
1.6 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 3[...] C[...] Street, Belhar;
1.7 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 3[...] C[...] Street, Belhar;
1.8 Erf 4[...] Belhar, situated at 3[...] C[...] Street, Belhar.
2. In th e event that the respondents and those holding title under t hem do
not vacate the units by 6 January 2025 , the Sheriff of the above
Honourable Court or his deputy is hereby authorised to evict them on or
after 7 January 2025.
3. In the event that it is ne cessary for the Sheriff to evict the respondents as
indicated in the preceding paragraph, the Sheriff and the applicant are
directed to ensure that such eviction process is carried out in a dignified
and respectful manner having due regard to the responden ts’ age, the
interests and safety of their minor children, the elderly and any disabled
respondents.
4. The applicant (the City) is directed to make suitable emergency housing
available at Leonsdale to any respondents who request access thereto
and who h ave accepted the City’s offer within 30 days of date of this
order. In the alternative, and should any of the respondents indicate such
election, the City is directed to provide emergency housing kits to such
respondents.
5. With due regard to the preceding paragraph, the respondents who accept
the City’s offer of emergency housing , and those who require a larger
emergency unit or structure, are required to make application to the City
simultaneously with their application referred to in the precedi ng
paragraph, for consideration by the applicant.
6. No order as to costs.
_______________________
M PANGARKER
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
For applicant: Adv B Joseph SC
Adv S Hendricks
Instructed by: Riley Inc.
Mr J Riley
For 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th
and 10th respondents: Adv D Gess SC
Adv N Essa
Instructed by: Cader & Co.
Ms Y Cader