SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

CASE NO: 2024-106527
DATE: 14 August 2025
(1) NOT REPORTABLE
(2) NOT OF INTREST TO OTHER JUDGES

In the matter between:

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALTY Applicant

and

THE UNKNOWN INDIVIDUALS OR GROUP OF PERSONS TRESPASSING
AND OR ATTEMPTING TO INVADE WITH THE INTENTION TO OCCUPY
THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS ERF 1[...], RABIE RIDGE
EXTENSION 1, AND ERF 1[...], RABIE RIDGE, EXTENSION 2 First Respondent

OCCUPIERS OF ERF 1[...], RABIE RIDGE EXTENSION 1 , LISTED IN
ANNEXURE “A” TO APPLICANT’S FOUNDING AFFIDAVIT Second Respondent

CHIEF OF POLICE, SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICE Third Respondent

Neutral Citation: City of Johannesburg v Unknown Individuals and Other s
(2024-106527) [2025] ZAGPJHC --- (14 August 2025)
Coram: Adams J
Heard: 24 April 2025

2
Delivered: 14 August 2025 – This judgment was handed down electronically
by circulation to the parties' representatives by email , by being uploaded to
CaseLines and by release to SAFLII. The date and time for hand- down is
deemed to be 11:30 on 14 August 2025.
Summary: Civil procedure – urgent application – for interim eviction –
section 5 of the Prevention of Illegal Evict ion from and Unlawful Occupation of
Land Act (PIE Act) – urgent eviction order to be granted if the following
requirements complied with: (a) real and imminent danger; (b) likely hardship to
the owner if an order for eviction is not granted, exceed ing the likely hardship to
the unlawful occupier; and (c) no other effective remedy available – whether it is
just and equitable to grant the eviction order would not be entirely irrelevant –
the fact that the continued occupation of a property may hamper a public
housing development scheme does not, in the circumstances of this matter,
constitute the type of damage or injury contemplated in s 5(1) of the PIE Act –
the same as regards the fact that the social housing development would suffer a
knock – also, the potential damage to the applicant and its broader citizenry
found not to be enough to balance out the likely hardship to the residents and
their children on eviction – the requirements of s 5 not found to have been met
on the evidence in casu –
Urgent application dismissed.

ORDER

(1). The applicant’s urgent eviction application in terms of section 5(1) of the
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (‘PIE
Act’), be and is hereby dismissed.

(2). The costs of part ‘A’ of the application are reserved for consideration and a
decision at the hearing of Part ‘B’ of the application.

3
JUDGMENT

Adams J:

[1]. This is an urgent application by the applicant in terms of s 5 of the
Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1 (PIE
Act). The applicant applies for orders urgently evicting the first and the second
respondents and all other unknown persons occupying the immovable property
described as Erf 1[...] , Rabie Ridge Extension 1 and Erf 1[...] , Rabie Ridge
Extension 2 (‘the property’).

[2]. The applicant is the owner of the propert y, which is in fact two pieces of
land located and situated adjacent to Freedom Drive , between Modderfontein
and Strandloper Roads, in Rabie Ridge. The stands are between formal stands
in Rabie Ridge, which comprises low-cost housing – not funded by public funds
but through mortgage bonds by banks, and an informal settlement known as
K60.

[3]. These properties have been, according to the applica nt, the subject of
continuous threats of invasion, culminating in various applications for
interdictory relief, at the instance of both the applicant and the so -called
invaders. As far back as 2021, this Court (per Makume J ) issued a rule nisi
interdicting the invasion of the properties. During September 2023, after the
lapse of the aforementioned rule nisi , the properties were again invaded by the
respondents. The a pplicant alleges that it responded to the invasion of its
properties by deploying its law enforcement agency and security companies to,
as they put it, ‘counter-spoliate’ the invasion by demolishing and removing the
structures that were erected on the properties , illegally so, according to the
applicant.

1 Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.

4

[4]. It conducted several counter -spoliation operations to regain possession
of its properties. However, on 5 December 2023, the r espondents approached
this Court on an urgent basis for an order to inter alia declare the attempts by
the applicant to evict them as unlawful, as well as for an order that the applicant
restore to them peaceful and undisturbed possession of the properties. This
application was struck from the roll for lack of urgency and the properties ,
according to the applicant, remained vacant unt il April 2024 , when the
respondents again re-invaded the properties. Again, the applicant responded by
conducting what it terms an ‘operation to counter -spoliate’ by demolish ing the
structures erected on the properties by the respondents.

[5]. The occupiers thereupon resolved to pursue their aforementioned
spoliation application as an ordinary application and, at the instance of the
respondents, the matter was set down on the ordinary opposed motion roll for
22 July 2024, on which date the matter was allocated to be heard by Wilson J .
On 2 August 2024, seemingly after much to and fro, Wilson J granted an order
in favour of the second respondents inter alia restoring their possession of one
of the properties, being Erf 1[...], Rabie Ridge Ext ension 1. In terms of
Wilson J’s order, no one was to be evicted from this property unless by an order
of Court.

[6]. Shortly thereafter, t he applicant launched an application t o interdict the
further invasion of Erf 1[...] , Rabie Ridge, Extension 1 and the complete
invasion of Erf 1[...] , Rabie Ridge, Extension 2. On 21 August 2024, this Court
(per Makume J) issued a rule nisi in favour of the applicant.

[7]. Further, in an endeavour to obtain an eviction order as stipulated in the
Wilson J order, the applicant, on 18
September 2024, launched this urgent
eviction application in terms of s 5 of the PIE Act.

5
[8]. It may be apposite at this stage to cite the provisions of s 5 of the PIE
Act, which reads, in the relevant part as follows: -
‘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.
(2) Before the hearing of the proceedings contemplated in subsection
(1), the court must give written and effective notice of the intention of the
owner or person in charge to obtain an order for eviction of the unlawful
occupier to the unlawful occupier and the municipality in whose area of
jurisdiction the land is situated.
(3) The notice of proceedings contemplated in subsection (2) must-
(a) state that proceedings will be instituted in terms of subsection (1)
for an order for the eviction of the unlawful occupier;
(b) indicate on what date and at what time the court will hear the
proceedings;
(c) set out the grounds for the proposed eviction; and
(d) state that the unlawful occupier is entitled to appear before the
court and defend the case and, where necessary, has the right to apply
for legal aid.’

6
[9] In Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha
Homes & Others 2, the Constitutional Court explained the principles applicable
to a section 5 application as follows: -
‘[90] It is apparent that s 5(1) sets out certain very stringent
requirements to obtain an urgent eviction pending the determination of
proceedings for a final order of eviction of the applicants. In proceedings
in terms of s 5 therefore, any issue in relation to whether an order for
eviction should be granted, and, in particular, whether it is just and
equitable to grant the eviction order, would be entirely irrelevant. The PIE
Act contemplates that urgent proceedings in terms of s 5 will be
separate, independent and distinct from the substantial eviction
proceedings contemplated in s 6.
The High Court found that 'the applicants had clearly complied with the
procedure laid down in s 5 of PIE' on the basis of certain notices that had
been issued by that court. One would ordinarily have expected an urgent
eviction order to have been obtained upon proof of the stringent
requirements of s 5 of the PIE Act, including the existence of a real and
imminent danger of substantial injury or damage to any person or
property. In the event, although an urgent order in terms of s 5 was
applied for, no order was in fact obtained.’

[9]. In sum, the case on behalf of the applicant is that if they are not granted
orders, on an urgent basis, for the ejectment of the first and the second
respondents, its plans to develop mixed housing on these properties for the
benefit of the broader community in the area, will be scuppered and derailed.
These properties, so it is alleged by the applicant, has been identified for
purposes of a mixed housing development to unlock and de- densify the
identified informal settlements in the Greater Ivory Park area. The development
will cater for community members within the Greater Ivory Park area who are

will cater for community members within the Greater Ivory Park area who are
eligible and meet a set allocation criterion for specified housing opportunities.


2 Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes & Others 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC).

7
[10]. Moreover, so the contention on behalf of the applicant goes, on 22 March
2018, this Court issued an order for the Municipality to provide the unlawful
occupiers of Portion 44 of the Farm Allandale with alternative accommodation.
These persons, so the applicant alleges, are some of the beneficiaries of the
mixed housing development . The development is at the f irst phase and cannot
proceed due to the invasion of the property. The costs associated with the f irst
phase of the development is estimated to be in excess R8 million, which sum
will be wasted if this phase is not proceeded with.

[11]. The respondents oppose the application for urgent eviction orders and
they do so on the basis firstly that the application is not urgent. In sum, the
ground for their opposition is that the application is not urgent because the
applicant dragged its feet in coming to court. If indeed there is any urgency, so
the respondents contend, such urgency is self -created, and the application
should thus be struck from the roll for lack of urgency. It is also alleged by the
respondents that they would be rendered homeless if evicted from the property.
The respondents also deny that the ‘stringent requirements of s 5 of the PIE
Act’ have been proven by the applicant.

[12]. Therefore, the questions to be considered in this urgent application are
the following: (a) Is the applicant entitled to an order evicting the respondents?
(b) Is the matter urgent and did the applicant satisfy the requirements of s 5 of
the PIE Act? The latter two issues are interlinked in that the provisions of s 5
imply that, provided the stringent requirements of the section are met by the
case on behalf of an applicant, the application is inherently and by definition
urgent and an applicant is entitled to interim relief on an urgent basis.

[13]. These issues are to be considered and decided against the factual
backdrop in the matter and the facts set out in the paragraphs which follow.

backdrop in the matter and the facts set out in the paragraphs which follow.

[14]. I do not agree with the contentions on behalf of the applicant that, for the
reasons mentioned above, the matter is indeed urgent as contemplated by

8
s 5(1) of the PIE Act. I do not accept the submission by the applicant that
because the land in question is not yet serviced and there is no water and
electricity, that this amount to ‘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’, as contemplated by s 5(1)(a). Far from it. This court (per
Wilson J) has already found that the respondents have been in occupation of
the property – on and off – since during or about September 2023. There have
not been any major disasters during that period. It is not so, as the applicant
would have the Court believe, that t he land is thus not yet habitable and that it
has to be accepted that it poses a health risk to any occupants who occupy it in
its current state. I also cannot accept, as a fact, without more the allegation by
the applicant that there are threats of violence and ongoing criminality on the
properties. How, I ask rhetorically, is this different from everyday life in South
Africa.

[15]. I therefore do not believe that, as contended on behalf of the applicant,
the only way to prevent further unnecessary deaths and to restore law and
order on the properties is for this Court to grant the orders sought by the
applicant and to do so on an urgent basis. It is indeed regrettable that the
respondents seemingly are the ones who took the law into their own hands by
occupying the property earmarked for a housing development project, which
would benefit the community as a whole and not just a few individuals, who’s
actions in casu amount to ‘jumping the queue’. However, this in and of itself
does not warrant this Court’s intervention in terms of s 5 of the PIE Act.

[16]. In Telkom SA (SOC) Ltd v Moeletsi and Others
3, this Court (per Wilson
J) held as follows: -
‘(13) Applications under section 5 of PIE, especially those which rest on
claims of the nature Telkom makes in this case, warrant close scrutiny.

claims of the nature Telkom makes in this case, warrant close scrutiny.
Any substantiated claim of imminent risk to a person's safety and
property obviously demands serious consideration. It is equally obvious,

3 Telkom SA (SOC) Ltd v Moeletsi and Others 2023 JDR 1869 (GJ).

9
though, that an applicant in a section 5 case has an interest in
emphasising the imminence of any potential risks to life and limb in order
to obtain an urgent interim eviction order.
(14) This difficulty is compounded by the fact that many, perhaps most,
eviction applications under section 5 of PIE will be heard without formal
opposition. They will generally be brought on a very short notice by
people with the resources necessary to engage the urgent mechanisms
PIE provides. Unlawful occupiers faced with a section 5 eviction claim
will seldom have the wherewithal to obtain the representation necessary
to contest the applicant's version, especially when that version rests on
expert evidence.
(15) It is accordingly incumbent on a court to evaluate the applicant's
factual claims carefully. Counsel for the applicant is also under a
heightened duty to present the case fairly, by making arguments that go
no further than are reasonably justified by the facts alleged, and by
drawing the court's attention to any fact that might count against an
urgent interim eviction order.’

[17]. What was held by Wilson J is Telkom finds equal application in casu.

[18]. The applicant’s application therefore stumbles at the first hurdle posed by
s 5(1)(a) of the PIE Act. The applicant’s case fares no better if one has regard
to further fact s in the matter and its application to s 5(1) of the PIE Act . I now
proceed to deal with those facts and the application of the said section thereto.

[19]. During July 2020 and in response to the COVID -19 pandemic , the
Gauteng Provinc ial Government resolved to find other solutions aimed at
preventing or at least curtailing the further spread of the Corona virus in highly
congested areas. Rabie Ridge and Ivory Park were identified as some of the
densely populated areas , which required to be uncompressed in order to curb
the spread of the virus. The province accordingly resolved to build Temporary

the spread of the virus. The province accordingly resolved to build Temporary
Relocation Units ( ‘TRU's’) with the purpose of f acilitating the r eduction of the

10
density and overcrowding in informal settlements . The properties in question
were identified for the purpose of providing TR U's to the affected communities.
The project aimed at moving people from informal settlements so as to address
the difficulty associated with social distancing.

[20]. The intention of the a pplicant was to complete the project in 2020 within
a period of three months of its inception. The project however suffered some
delays in relation to its finalization, which meant that the land could no longer be
utilised for the initially intended Covid- 19 uncompressing purpose. It was
therefore decided that the land would be utilised for the benefit of the members
of the Greater Ivory Park community. To that end a National Upgrading Support
Programme ( ‘the NUSP ’) was initiated with a view to implement ing the
Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (‘UISP’) in the identified informal
settlements in the Greater Ivory Park Area. The Municipality accordingly
entered into an agreement with the Housing Development Agency ( ‘the HAD’)
to jointly plan for a mixed housing development on the properties. There are
town planning processes that are yet to be finalised in this regard.

[21]. The mixed housing development will unlock informal settlements in the
Greater Ivory Park area and the a pplicant will be able to de- densify the
identified informal settlements. This development will cater for community
members within the Greater Ivory Park area who are eligible and meet a set
allocation criterion for specified housing opportunities.

[22]. It is this mixed housing development plan which is scuppered by the
invasion of the properties, which, in turn, means that the development cannot
be proceeded with. Allowing the property to remain invaded, so the applicant
submits, makes it impossible for it to implement the development since the
properties are key to the intervention. Additionally, this means t hat the

properties are key to the intervention. Additionally, this means t hat the
Municipality will be unable to comply with the 2018 order of this Court
referenced supra.

11
[23]. There are also other considerations , so the applicant contends, which
favour the granting of an eviction order in terms of s 5(1) of the PIE Act, notably
the fact that t here have been several acts of criminality and violence that
accompany the invasions.

[24]. The applicant contends that the aforegoing amount to prove of
compliance with the requirements in s 5(1) of the PIE Act. I disagree. It cannot,
in my view, be said with any conviction, if one has regard to the facts in the
matter, that there is a real and imminent danger of damage to the property and
harm to the community in the area at large. Nor can it be said that the hardship
to the applicant and the other residents in the area exceed the potential harm to
the respondents who do not have any right to oc cupation. Far from it. The
evidence indicates that the respondents run the real risk of being rendered
homeless in the event of their eviction. The potential harm to be suffered by the
applicant if the relief sought by it is not granted, pales into insignificance, if one
considers the fate to these 250 + individuals.

[25]. The question of whether, and to what extent, an urgent interim eviction
order would lead to homelessness is clearly relevant to the jurisdictional
requirements of section 5. In assessing, for example, whether there is a real
and imminent danger of substantial injury to persons or property unless an
unlawful occupier is immediately evicted, consideration must obviously be given
to whether an eviction would cause substantial injury to those to be evicted. In
considering whether the hardship caused to the appl icant if the eviction order is
not granted exceeds the likely hardship to the unlawful occupier if it is, the
hardship of likely homelessness is plainly a relevant factor.

[26]. I conclude therefore that the applicant has not made out a case for the
relief it seeks in terms of s 5 of the PIE Act. It is so, as contended by

relief it seeks in terms of s 5 of the PIE Act. It is so, as contended by
Mr Mokhare SC, who appeared for the applicant, together with Mr Mutenga, i n
this matter, that the continued occupation of the properties is an impediment to
the resolution of the chaotic situation created by the respondents. As long as

12
they remain in occupation, the a pplicant will not be able to regain control of the
properties. However, this does not, in my view, translate into prove of
compliance with the very stringent requirements of the said section.

[27]. As for the requirement in s 5(1)(c), I am of the view that the applicant
indeed has available to it other effective remedy in the form of a s 4 eviction
application, which will be heard in due course. Moreover, I understand that
there is at present an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal pending against
the decision of this Court (per Wilson J) referred to supra. That can and should,
in my view, be regarded as an alternative remedy available to the applicant.

[28]. For all of these reasons, I come to the conclusion that the applicant has
not met any of the requirements of s 5 of the PIE Act . Its application therefore
falls to be dismissed.

[29]. As for costs, I am of the considered view that the Court adjudicating the
part ‘B’ of the application would be in a much better position to decide the issue
of the costs relative to the urgent s 5 application.

Order

[30]. Accordingly, I make the following order:
(1). The applicant’s urgent eviction application in terms of section 5(1)
of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of
Land Act (‘PIE Act’), be and is hereby dismissed.
(2). The costs of part ‘A’ of the application are reserved for consideration
and a decision at the hearing of Part ‘B’ of the application.

L R ADAMS
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg

13

HEARD ON: 24 April 2025
JUDGMENT DATE:
14 August 2025 – Judgment handed
down electronically
FOR THE APPLICANT: W Mokhare SC, with H Mutenga
INSTRUCTED BY:
Koikanyang Attorneys ,
Riviera, Johannesburg
FOR THE FIRST AND
SECOND RESPONDENTS:
T Mirtle, with M Sebola
INSTRUCTED BY:
Paul T Leisher & Associates
Attorneys Incorporated,
Bassonia, Johannesburg
FOR SOME OF THE FIRST AND
SECOND RESPONDENTS:
N Nkosi
INSTRUCTED BY:
Nkosi (Nonhlanhla) Attorneys,
Tembisa, Kempton Park
FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: No appearance
INSTRUCTED BY: No appearance