SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
MPUMALANGA DIVISION, MBOMBELA MAIN SEAT

CASE NO: 6192 / 2024
(1) REPORTABLE: YES
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE 05 March 2025
SIGNATURE

In the matter between:

HL HALL PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD APPLICANT
(REGISTRATION NO. 1970/008171/07)

And

THE ALLIANCE CHURCH FIRST
RESPONDENT

CHAUKE ANTON SECOND
RESPONDENT

CHAUKE OBED THIRD
RESPONDENT

NDIMANDE THABILE FOURTH
RESPONDENT

SIBIYA SOLOMON FIFTH
RESPONDENT

MTHUNYWA PINKY SIXTH
RESPONDENT

MONA SOLOMON SEVENTH
RESPONDENT

THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF EIGHTH RESPONDENT
PORTION 22, A PORTION OF PORTION 6
OF THE FARM DINGWELL 276, JT,
MPUMALANGA

THE UNLAWFUL IVADERS AND THOSE NINTH RESPONDENT
WHO ARE CONSTRUCTING STRUCTURES
ON PORTION 22, A PORTION OF PORTION 6
OF THE FARM DINGWELL 276, JT,
MPUMALANGA

THE MBOMBELA LOCAL MUNI CIPALITY TENTH
RESPONDENT

THE ENHLANZENI DISTRICT ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
MUNICIPALITY

THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE TWELFTH
RESPONDENT
SERVICES WHITE RIVER

_______________________ _______________________ ________ __________ _

J U D G M E N T
_____________________________________________________ ___________ _


RATSHIBVUMO DJP:

Delivered : This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the part ies'
representatives by email . The date and time for hand -down is deemed to be on 05
March 2025 at 10H00.

[1] Introduction
This is an urgent application whereby the Applicant seeks an order in the following
terms ,
1.1 “That pending the finalization of proceedings to be brought in terms
of Section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an d Unlawful
Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (PIE) , the First to the Ninth Respondents and
all those occupying the Applicant’s property be evicted from the immovable
property more fully described as PORTION 22, A PORTION OF PORTION 6
OF THE FARM DINGWELL 276 , REGISTRATION DIVISION JT,
MPUMALANGA (the Applicant’s property) in terms of Section 5 of PIE .
1.2 That the First to Ninth Respondents , and all those occupying the
Applicant’s property, be ordered and directed to vacate the Applicant’s
property within 72 hours of any order being granted by this Honourable Court.
1.3 That the First to Ninth Respondents are ordered and direct ed to
dismantle and remove :
1.3.1 the illegal structures they have erected on the property ; or
1.3.2 which have encroach ed upon the property in terms of the
encroachment diagram attached to the notice of motion and marked
“Y”;
1.3.3 To remove the building material therefrom within the time period
stipulated in paragraph [1.2] above.
1.4 That, in the event that the First to Ninth Respondents , and all those
occupying the Applicant’s property , do not vacate the Applicant’s property
in terms of prayer 1.2 above , the Sheriff of the Court or his /her lawful ly
appointed Deputy , be authori sed and directed to evict the First to Ninth
Respondents from the Applicant’s property .
1.5 That in the event that the First to Ninth Respondents fail to comply with
prayer s 1.2 or 1.3 above , the Sheriff and /or any persons appointed by
him/her are authori sed to
1.5.1 demolish and remove any structures built upon, materials used and
the moveable assets found on the properties, upon effecting the
demolition ;
1.5.2 any building material, building components, or personal effects
of the First to Ninth Respondents remaining at the property for
whatever reason shall be removed from the property and disposed
of by the Sheriff or the Applicant .
1.6 That the Sheriff of the Court, or his /her lawfully appointed Deputy, be
authori sed and directed to approach the Twelfth R espondent for any
assistance he /she may require in the circumstances .
1.7 Start the First to Ninth Respondents are to pay the cost s of this
application, including the cost s of part A hereof, jointly and severally, the
one paying the other to be absolved .
1.8 That the Applicant be granted such further or alternative relief as the
Honourable Court may deem fit in the circumstances .”

[2] The above p rayers constituted what the Applicant phrased as Part B of the
application. On 10 December 2024, this Court granted Part A of the application
when it declared that the Applicant’s property was unlawfully invaded by the First to
Ninth Respondents and interdicted them from further invading, trespassing and
developing or demarcating the land. The Court further authorised the issuing and
service of notice of the application in terms of section 5( 2) of the Prevention of
Illegal Eviction from, and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, no. 19 of 1998 (the
Act), which application was to be instituted in terms of section 5(1) thereof . In the
same order, the Tenth Respondent was directed to file a report on the availability of
temporary emergency accommodation to any of the occupiers of the Applicant’s
property.

[3] There has not been any application for leave to appeal that judgment nor was there
any application for rescission of that order , as of the date of hearing of the
application in respect of Part B. As a result, court order dated 10 December 2024
remain s valid and binding. Meanwhile, the Sheriff proceeded to execute the service
of notice of application in terms section 5(2) of the Act. The Tenth Respondent also
filed a report regarding the availability of temporary emergency accommodation.
The current application is opposed by the Second to Fourth and Sixth to Ninth
Respondents (the Respondents) and by the Fifth Respondent separately and for
different reasons .

[4] Part B of the application .
As it is apparent from the notice of motion , this application is premised on section
5(1) of the Act, which provides,
“5 Urgent proceedings for eviction
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 4, the owner or person in
charge of land may institute urgent proceedings for the eviction of an
unlawful occupier of that land pending the outcome of proceedings for a final
order, and the court may grant such an order if it is satisfied that -
(a) there is a real and imminent danger of substantial injury or damage to
any person or property if the unlawful occupier is not forthwith evicted from
the land;
(b) the likely hardship to the owner or any other affected person if an order
for eviction is not granted, exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawful
occupier against whom the order is sought, if an order for eviction is granted;
and
(c) there is no other effective remedy available. ”

[5] Submissions.
According to the founding affidavit deposed to by Ms. Sabine Walker (Ms. Walker) ,
a director for the Applicant, the Applicant has been the owner of Portion 6 of the
Farm Dingwell 276, Registration Division JT, Transvaal, from 19 June 1985.1 In
2019 , this was subdivided into three parts being Portion 21, Portion 22 and the
remainder being Portion 6. From the aerial photograph compiled in November 2024
by Mr. Andrew Smith, the Geographic Information System Specialist (the GIS
specialist ), which is attached to the founding affidavit, there are 19 stands with

1 See paragraph 12.1 of the Founding Affidavit on p. 18 of the paginated bundle and a title deed on p.
74.
building structures allocated to Portion 22, of Portion 6 of the Farm Dingwell 276,
Registration Division JT, Mpumalanga (the Applicant’s property).2 The stands are
marked as Stand A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S and T. Of
these, Stand A, B, O, S and T (five in total) only encroach into the cadastral
boundary of the Applicant’s property, while the remaining stands (fourteen) are
completely located within this property. These stands are occupied by the First to
the Ninth Respondents.

[6] According to the Applicant, the allocation of these stands was done without its
knowledge and consent. The development appears to be an attempt to develop a
township as there are roads established in between the stands , and some of the
structures have been fully built or are being built. Amongst the stands, there is a
church structure, a brick -laying business, a multi -storey student residence and
residential structures. The existence of these stands only came to the attention of
Ms. Walker at the beginning of November 2024.3 The reason she could not have
known of this earlier is attributed to the fact that the Applicant’s security officers
were monitoring the wrong boundary lines as there are many other stands
established in the neighbouring property (the Remaining Extent of the Farm
Dingwell 279, JT, Mpumalanga) which is owned by Matsafeni Trust. In the
neighbouring property, a township is being developed without the necessary
demarcations and authorisation by the municipality (the Tenth Respondent).

[7] Upon learning of the invasion of its land, the Applicant brought an urgent
application referred to above in which Part A of the application was granted.4 The
Applicant alleges that they intend to bring an application for eviction in terms of
section 4 of the Act. Th e application, premised on section 5(1) of the Act, is brought
pending the envisaged application in terms of section 4 and seeks the relief as per
Part B of the application.

[8] It is the contention by the Applicant that there is a real and imminent danger of
substantial injury or damage to any person or property if the unlawful occupier s are

2 See Annexure FA -4 on p.90 of the paginated bundle and the GIS specialist affidavit on p. 211.
3 See paragraph 55 of the founding affidavit on p. 30 for the paginated bundle.
4 See paragraph 2 above.
not forthwith evicted from its land. This contention is grounded on the report
compiled by a Geotechnical Engineer in December 2008, after he was appointed
by the Applicant to investigate the Applicant’s property . This happened when the
Applicant was contemplating the potential proclamation of a township.5 After
undertaking extensive laboratory tests of the soil taken from the Applicant’s
property, the report concludes that;
“Potential collapsible and compressible soils
The open texture noted in this surficial hillwash , gullywash and underlying
reworked residual granite, makes these soils susceptible to consolidation
and/or collapse settlement. Representative samples of these soils, were
therefore, subjected [to] double oedometer tests and/or moisture, density and
specific gravity determinations. The results from the consolidometer tests
reveal that the hillwash , gullywash and reworked residual granite are
susceptible to collapse. The gullywash classifies as moderate trouble (3) the
hillwash classifies as severe trouble ( 3) and the underlying reworked residual
granite classifies as trouble (3). In addition to these soils being collapsible the
calculated coefficient of volume compressibility over a stress range of 100kPa
greater than the overburden pressure (Table 3), reveals the surficial
transported soils (hillwash and gullywash) and the underlying reworked
residual granite, all classify as a highly compressible (Table 4).”6

[9] Over and above this report, the Tenth Respondent issued a certificate dated 08
November 2024 in which the following is recorded in respect of the Applicant’s
property : Zoning : “agriculture,” uses: “permitted to farm,” consent use: “none, ” and
specific geological requirements: “ proposals to overcome detrimental soil
conditions to the satisfaction of the Municipality shall be contained in all building
plans submitted for approval and all buildings shall be erected in accordance with
precautionary measures accepted by the Municipality .”7 [My emphasis].

[10] The Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer report is not challenged by the
Respondents, nor do they proffer any alternative report thereto. The Respondents

5 See Annexure FA -6A on p. 112 of the paginated bundle.
6 See paragraph 5.4 of the Geotechnical Engineer report on p. 125 -126 of the paginated bundle.
7 See Annexure FA -5 on p. 91 of the paginated bundle.
do not even attempt to dispute the contents in the Tenth Respondent’s certificate.
They however deny that the structures built on the Applicant’s property are
susceptible to collapse or pose danger to the occupants and/or to the Applicant’s
property. The major reason advanced for this assertion is that they have been in
occupation of the property since 2019 and their structures have since, not
collapse d, suggesting that they are safe and not susceptible to collapse.

[11] The Fifth Respondent who filed a separate affidavit from the rest of the
Respondents, is opposed to the part of the notice of motion in which the Applicant
prays for the demolition of the structures. The case against him , like four other
stands owners , is about the encroachment of the Applicant’s land by a portion of a
stand he occupies. In his answering affidavit, the Fifth Respondent questions the
accuracy of the boundary markings reflected in the photographs compiled by the
GIS specialist . This argument does not take his concerns far as he offers no
alternative photographs to those presented by the Applicant, nor does he challenge
the expertise of the GIS specialist appointed by the Applicant.

[12] The rest of the Respondents do not deny that the Applicant’s property is zoned for
agriculture use and that they are occupying it as though it had been zoned for
residence, without it being so rezoned by the Tenth Respondent. I t follows naturally
that the building plans for the structures erected could not be in line with the
National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, no. 103 of 1977, for not
having gone through the necessary approval process within the municipal
authority .

[13] The Respondents also seem to rely on the document commissioned by one of the
occupiers (probably the Eighth Respondent), Mr. BJ Mona. The report
commissioned by Mr. Mona was compiled by Eyesizwe Consulting Engineers. This
one-page report states,
“At your request a visual survey of the building located at REMAINDER OF
FARM DINGWELL 276 - JT PHUMLANI VILLAGE, was conducted by Mr.
Given Kola. Transmitted herewith are the inspection report stating our
professional opinions on whether the items of construction included in the
survey are performing their intended function or are in need of alterations.
The scope of our inspection and other important information particularly in
the area of dispute resolution should a question arise. is contained in our
service agreement.
Thank you for asking Eyesizwe Consulting Engineers to perform this
important inspection work for you. If you have any questions after reviewing
this report please feel free to call Mr. Kola at 0[...]******* 3[...]
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE
The purpose of the inspection was to inspect concrete slabs, structural walls
and foundation footing of the building, particularly the load bearing walls and
give our opinions on whether or not incomplete building conditions as it has
been exposed to the weather for some time (sic).
It is our purpose to provide information on the condition of the building on
the day of the inspection and not to provide discussions or
recommendations concerning the future maintenance of any part of the
building or to verify the adequacy and/or design of any component of the
building. It is pointed out that other engineers or inspectors may have
contrasting opinions to those given in this report in the performance of the
inspection, Eyesizwe Consulting Engineers has acted as an engineering
consultant subject to the standards of Engineering Council of South Africa
(ECSA) and National Building Regulator (NRB)
SCOPE
The scope of the inspection include limited visual observation of the building
conditions.
BUILDING CONDITIONS
We are pleased to inform you that the whole structure is structurally sound
to perform its intended design.”8

[14] Discussion .
It is plainly clear that the letter by Eyesizwe Consulting Engineers was not penned
to respond to the Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer report of December 2008 . It
also appears from the contents of the letter that it was written following a visual

8 See Annexure PB7 attached to unpaginated “Respondent’s answering affidavit ” deposed by Nicholas
Brian Pebane on behalf of the Second to Fourth and Sixth to Ninth Respondents.
observation, which was done without laboratory tests of the soil as was done in the
Applicant’s 2008 Geotechnical Engineer report. This letter does not even answer
the question on why the structure was built without the required approval by the
municipal authority . In essence, the letter by Eyesizwe Consulting Engineers is
irrelevant to the issues raised by the Applicant in this application.

[15] As for the Respondents’ contention that the Applicant sold the property and/or that
it allowed them to occupy the land, the Applicant disputes that narration saying, the
land in respect of which th is submissio n was made is a different property to the one
pertaining to this application , which is in the same neighbourhood, and it was sold
to a third party . The Respondents ’ contention was not raised by the m when
opposing the application that resulted in the order granted on 10 December 2024.9
In line with the Plascon -Evans rule, where in motion proceedings disputes of fact
arise on the affidavits, a final order can be granted only if the facts averred in the
applicant's affidavits, which have been admitted by the respondent, together with
the facts alleged by the latter, justify such order .10 This dispute creates no
conundrum for the Applicant as this application impacts only to those in occupation
of the Applicant’s property, that has not been subjected to sale.

[16] If this dispute is out of an error by the Respondents, regarding the exact location
and boundaries of the property that was sold by the Applicant, that error could be
attributed to many other stands in the Applicant’s neighbourhood which are not
subjected to this application. It would appear that the same error was committed by
the Tenth Responde nt when compiling a report as directed by th is Court. I will deal
with this report later. It suffices at this stage to state that th is application does not
affect the residents not in occupation of the Applicant’s property, i.e. all those
outside the stands described in paragraph 5 above.

[17] The urgen cy requirement in all matters of eviction premised on section 5 of the Act,
is embedded in the statutory provision . This means an order shall only be granted if
the Applicant is able to prove that the application is urgent. The Respondents
submitted that the application could not have been urgent because they had been

9 See paragraph 2 above.
10 See National Director of Public Prosecution v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) at para 26.
in occupation of the Applicant’s property for over four years, and that it has been
over two months after the application was brought before it could be heard,
meaning that the delay has diluted the urgency.

[18] The reason the application could not be heard on a date it was initially set down ,
early in January 2025 is that the Court required that a report be compiled by the
Tenth Respondent on the availability of temporary emergency accommodation.
The need for this report was initiated by the Court and the delay in having it ready
cannot be blamed on the Applicant. The argument to the effect that the delay in
filing the report diluted the urgency is therefore without merit.

[19] The occupants of the structures erected on the Applicant’s property have been in
imminent danger from the day the structures were erected on the premises, for as
long as they did not comply with the municipal requirements as per municipal
certificate. Chances are that the occupants did not know that there was (and still is)
a risk that those structures could collapse due to the nature of soil . The risk did not
start the date on which the Applicant became aware of the occupation of its
property or when the application was launched in court . The date on which the
Applicant was made aware of the occupation of its property , became a date on
which the risk (which had been in existence) was known.

[20] The duration of the occupation of the property without any incident of collapse does
not mitigate against the risk. It could be just a question of luck, or the structures
having not encountered the triggering climate such as heavy rains, from the date
they were erected. I am therefore in agreement with Rabie J in Groengras
Eiendomme (PTY) LTD and Others v Elandsfontein Unlawful Occupants and
Others ,11 when he held that the duration of the unlawful occupants is not a deciding
or even a relevant factor for consideration.

[21] The only evidence relevant that the Respondents could present, that eliminates the
risk, is expert evidence that could demonstrate if there are inaccuracies in the
Geotechnical Engineer report or another expert evidence to show that the

11 2002 (1) SA 125 (T) at para 28.
prerequisites in the municipal certificate and/or the Geotechnical Engineer report
were taken care of, before the structures were erected. That evidence would
demonstrate that the soil was safer for the occupiers and thereby eliminating
imminent danger, that otherwise remains in existence . No such evidence was
presented before the court.

[22] There is therefore no basis to now conclude that the occupiers are not in any
imminent danger, unless it is expected of us to re ach such conclusion only after
tragedies have struck , of which it would be too late. Based on the Geotechnical
Engineer report , which remains unchallenged, I therefore reach the conclusion that
there is a real and imminent danger of substantial injury or damage to the unlawful
occupiers of the property if the y are not forthwith evicted from the land .

[23] I have taken note of the concern raised on behalf of the Respondents to the effect
that while the Applicants had several years to acquire the Geotechnical Engineer
report, the Respondents were given just a few days within which to file answering
affidavit s as this was an urgent application and that they could not have
commissioned any report in that short space of time. Orders in terms of section 5 of
the Act are not intended to offer final relief to the litigants; hence the provision is
that these applicat ions should only be considered, “pending the outcome of
proceedings for a final order.” The door to obtain such a report, is as such not
closed as the application seeking a final relief in terms of section 4 of the Act is yet
to be brought. What is rather relevant for now is that while that application is
pending, no person should be in imminent danger that can be averted by a
temporal order for eviction .

[24] The next question to explore is whether the likely hardship to the owner or any
other affected person if an order for eviction is not granted, exceeds the likely
hardship to the unlawful occupier against whom the order is sought, if an order for
eviction is granted . This is not an easy exercise because it requires the court to
somehow evaluate the future hardship while at the present. The hardship that the
owner must endure when the property continues being invaded and used for other
purpose than it was zon ed for, is demonstrated when the Applicant tries to show
the difficulty in getting a buyer of land that is occupied and used as a township. The
current debate over the land grabs and invasions, which has taken the international
centre stage is just an example of the impact this could have , not just to the
Applicant as a landowners, but also the country ’s economy.12

[25] The report compiled by the Tenth Respondent opens a veil into the hardships likely
to be suffered by the Respondents, in case the order is granted as requested. As
indicated above, this application affects no more than 19 families, five of which are
affected only to the extent of their stands encroaching into the Applicant’s property .
The report should have been in respect of only 14 families or worse, not more than
19. The tenth Respondent however went on to compile a report in respect of 37
house holds . Of these, one is a church the owner of which resides elsewhere.
Thirty -two owners of the remaining 36 households are all employed . One of the
remaining four is a pensioner, whereas there is no indication in respect of the last
three. Of importance in this report is that none of the occupiers of the Applicant’s
property qualified for the provision of temporal emergency accommodation by the
Tenth Respondent as they were not even on the waiting list for that provision.

[26] The picture portrayed by the Tenth Respondent’s repo rt is not that of the indigent
people who could be struggling to make the ends meet. Some of the structures the
photographs of which were attached to the affidavits, appear to be decent houses
at face value. The importance of the above background is to the effect that these
are the people who, if they are given a chance to settle elsewhere , they can
recover from whatever hardship associated with the eviction . The court is however
not oblivious to the dilemma of our people and their desire to build homes provided
they are allocated a piece of land on which to settle . While I am sympathetic to
their plight , parties have to take cognisance of the fact that the rule of law means
just what it says . They, like everybody else, ha ve to bow to the law. They cannot
ride roughshod over it. Not even when the need is great .13


12 See the court’s remarks in Groengras Eiendomme (PTY) LTD and Others v Elandsfontein Unlawful
Occupants and Others (supra) at para 30 where the court said, “[I] n my view this Court cannot close its
eyes to the devastating effect land -grabs have had on the economy and the security of one of our
neighbouring countries. The rule of law means that everyone must respect and adhere D to the law. One
cannot ride roughshod over the law; not even when the need is great .”
13 See remarks by Dijkhorst J in Commercia Area Industrial Forum and Another v North East Rand
Transitional Metropolitan Council and Others 1997 (3) SA 1075 (T) at 1079B .
[27] The question on whether eviction is just and equitable is not a consideration when
dealing with eviction based on section 5 of the Act. It is the hardship the occupants
are likely to face that should be considered that overlaps with the aspect of just and
equitable. The court cannot turn a blind eye to this aspect as though it is
immaterial , especially when the order would result in them becoming homeless .14
In Telkom , Wilson J of Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg, took a view that
eviction on urgent basis should not be granted if the likely results would be
homelessness o f the respondents.15 In that case, the court agreed with the
judgement in Tshwane North Technical and Vocational Education and Training
College v Madisha16 where the same court had ordered the eviction of hostel
dwellers when it appeared that the hardship that might be done to Telkom’s
property if there were no eviction outweigh ed the hardship that the residents would
likely endure if they are evicted . This judgment was how ever distinguishable , as the
court reasoned, in that the hostel dwellers would not be rendered homeless by the
eviction.

[28] In Communicare17 the court faced the same dilemma as in Telkom where the
respondents would be rendered homeless in case the order was granted in terms
of section 5 of the Act. After weighing and balancing the hardship the respondents
would go through against the danger of damage to the properties, the likely
hardship to the applicant if eviction was not granted, and the lack of another
effective remedy , the court granted an order for eviction on condition that before
implementation thereof, each and every respondent had to provide the residential
address of where they came from for the local municipality to facilitate their
relocation back to where they came from before occupying the applicant’s property .

[29] In casu , hardship the Applicant would face in rehabilitating the land that was zoned
for agricultural purpose after years of being utilised as a township, is beyond
imagination. It may become impossible to restore it or doing so could be of no
economic value . The Applicant argues that there is no other effective remedy to the

14 See Communicare v Apolisi 2023 (6) SA 250 (WCC and Tekom SA (SOC) LTD v Moeletsi
(40530/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 590 (30 May 2023) .
15 See Telkom supra .
16 2019 JDR 0065 (GP) .
17 Supra .
urgent eviction. The Respondents deny this assertion, saying the alternative is to
proceed in terms of section 4 of the Act. I am of a view that the Respondents
missed the point in this regard as the alternative should talk to the imminent danger
posed by the continued occupation of the Applicant’s property.

[30] With the above, I hold a firm view that the continued occupation of the Applicant’s
property poses imminent danger to the occupants . I also reach the conclusion that
the hardship the Applicant would likely endure if an order for eviction is not granted,
exceeds the hardship the unlawful occupier s would likely endure if the order is
granted . There is no other effective remedy available to the Applicant given the
looming danger to the occupiers and the hardship the Applicants face s in respect
of the damage to the property.

[31] While this is application is urgent, and the danger remains imminent, this is one of
those matters in which the court should afford the respondents a reasonable
opportunity to relocate and settle at own expense, as none of them qualif ies to be
allocated a temporary emergency accommodation. This should be done while at
the same time taking cognisance of the urgency of this application . I would as such
order the eviction of the respondents and also allow them time and opportunity to
relocate on their own or with the facilitation by the local municipality , for those
needing assistance.

[32] For the same reasons expressed in paragraph 32 above , I am of the view that it
would be unnecessarily burdensome to mulct the Respondents with costs order. I
will as such make no order as to costs.

[33] The Order:
For the aforesaid reasons, I make the following order :
33.1 That pending the finalization of proceedings to be brought in terms of
Section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from , and Unlawful
Occupation of Land Act, no. 19 of 1998 (the Act) , the Second to Fourth and
Sixth to Ninth Respondents (the Respondents) and all those occupying the
Applicant’s property are evicted from the immovable property more fully
described as PORTION 22, A PORTION OF PORTION 6 OF THE FARM
DINGWELL 276, REGISTRATION DIVISION JT, MPUMALANGA (the
Applicant’s property) in terms of Section 5 of the Act .
33.2 That the Respondents and all those occupying the Applicant’s property, are
ordered and directed to vacate the Applicant ’s property by no later than 30
April 2025 .
33.3 That the First and the Fifth Respondents and all occupiers of Stands A, B,
O, S and T (stand that encroached upon the Applicant’s property in terms of
the encroachment diagram attached to the notice of motion and marked
“Y”), are ordered to remove structures encroaching into the Applicant’s
property by no later than 30 April 2025.
33.4 The Tenth Respondent is ordered to undertake a full investigation and
compile a report listing the addresses where the Respondents were
resident prior to their occupation of the Applicant’s property, on or before
Friday 11 April 2025 .
33.5 The Tenth Respondent is to facilitate the respondents’ move from the
Applicant’s property to the addresses listed in the report referred to under
paragraph 33.4 above on or before 30 April 2025.
33.6 That, in the event that the First to Ninth Respondents, and all those
occupying the Applicant’s property, do not cooperate with the Tenth
Respondent or vacate the Applicant’s property by 30 April 2025 , the Sheriff
of the Court or his/her lawfully appointed Deputy, is authorised and directed
to evict the First to Ninth Respondents from the Applicant’s property .
33.7 That the Sheriff of the Court, or his/her lawfully appointed Deputy, is
authorised and directed to approach the Twelfth Respondent for any
assistance he/she may require in the circumstances.
33.8 The decision on the demolition of structures erected by the Respondent s
shall stand over to be determined in the proceedings to be brought in terms
of Section 4 of the Act.
33.9 No order as to costs.






TV RATSHIBVUMO
DEPUTY JUDGE PRESIDENT
MPUMALANGA DIVISION OF THE HIGH COURT



FOR THE APPLICANT : ADV. L PETER
INSTRUCTED BY: VERMAAK MARSHALL
WELLBELOVED INC
C/O: WALTER & STANDER ATT
MBOMBELA
FOR THE 1ST- 4TH & 6TH- 9TH
RESPONDENT S ADV. LD TJALE
INSTRUCTED BY : TP RADEBE ATTORNEYS
MBOMBELA
FOR THE 5TH RESPONDENT: ADV. J MUZIMBA
INSTRUCTED BY: TM CHAUKE INC
MBOMBELA
DATE HEARD : 18 FEBRUARY 2025
DATE FOR SUPPLEMENTARY: 21 FEBRUARY 2025
HEADS OF ARGUMENT
JUDGMENT DELIVERED: 05 MARCH 2025