CASE NUMBER-initials 0 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
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
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 005076/2023
DATE: 02-09-2025
(1) REPORTABLE: NO.
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: / NO.
(3) REVISED.
DATE 2 September 2025
In the matter between
SIBANYE GOLD (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
THANDOLEWTHU BELE First Respondent
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS
OF 1 […] I[…] DRIVE Second Respondents
MERAFONG CITY LOCAL
MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
JUDGMENT EX TEMPORE
WILSON , J : The applicant, Sibanye, owns a property at 1[…] I[…]
CASE NUMBER-initials 1 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
Drive , C […]. The first respondent, Mr Bele, resides there with
individuals , cited collectively as the second respondents: the
unknown unlawful occupiers of Erf 2[…], 1[…] I[…] Drive , C […].
The t hird respondent is the Merafong C ity Local M unicipality .
Sibanye applies to evict the first and second respondents from the
property. Mr. Bele has filed a responding affidavit in which he
says that he would be rendered homeless by an eviction, and that
there are other people resident at the property who would be in
the same situation.
The municipality has filed a report in which it confirms
that Mr . Bele lives at the property with a son and a daughter .
However, it is clear from the report the municipality has not
actually visited the property and is unable to say w ho the second
respondents, the further unlawful occupiers of the property , are. It
may, of course , be that there are no further unlawful occupiers of
the property, but I do not know that on these papers, and the
municipality is unable to tell me. The fact that further occupiers
have been cited and the fact that Mr Bele says they exist creates
a probability that there are such occupiers . If there are such
occupiers , the court needs to be informed of their circumstances.
This has not been done. T hat is the first reason why an eviction
order cannot be granted today.
The second reason an eviction order cannot be granted
today is that Mr Bele has himself been allocated a house in terms
of what was once known as the Reconstruction and Development
Program me , and is now known as the Project -linked Subsidy
Program me . That house has not yet been fully constructed. A
representative of the municipality, a Mr Lemmy Jofile, attended
court and confirmed that the property allocated to Mr Bele is not
yet fully constructed. I am grateful to Mr Jofile coming to court to
confirm that and for the further assistance that he has provided.
CASE NUMBER-initials 2 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
A court will not make an eviction order – especially one
that might lead to homelessness – unless it is fully apprised of all
the relevant circumstances. As I have said, information relating to
two relevant circumstances is missing in this case. The first piece
of information is when Mr Bele’s allocated property will be ready
for his occupation. The second is what other unlawful occupiers, if
any, are present on the property and what their circumstances
are.
It seems to me to be a straightforward matter to resolve
both of these queries. All that need happen is , first, that the
municipality file a further report under oath setting out a date by
which Mr Bele’s subsidi sed home will be made available to him.
Secondly, somebody from the municipality needs to go to 1[ …]
I[…] Drive and investigate the circumstances applicable to any
further occupiers.
There was a faint suggestion on the papers , and again in
court before me, that the occupiers are dangerous and cannot be
approached. No primary facts have been placed on record from
which that inference could be drawn, and a court will be slow to
accept such an allegation made in a vacuum . It is not appropriate,
in my view, for courts to enlist themselves in the unfortunate
stereotyping that sometimes takes place in eviction proceedings
in which unlawful occupiers who live together on a property are
characteri sed as inherently dangerous and aggressive. Unless
there are primary facts from which that inference can be drawn,
any such allegation ought, in my view, to be rejected.
It is finally necessary to mention this . In the answering
affidavit it was originally contended that because Mr . Bele is
apparently registered as a d irector of various companies, he is
not at risk of homelessness. I do not think that being a registered
director of a company automatically leads to the inference that an
CASE NUMBER-initials 3 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
individual would not be rendered homeless on eviction, although it
is something that ought properly to be contextuali sed and
addressed in any consideration of their housing need. In this
case, though, the necessity to contextuali se and address that
allegation has fallen away , because the municipality has allocated
a project -linked subsidy to Mr Bele . Mr. Bele would not receive
such a subsidy unless he was poor enough to quaify for it and
was at least at some risk of homelessness on his eviction from the
property.
It seems to me , then, to be common cause that in this
case an eviction would probably lead to homelessness without the
provision of alternative accommodation, and that it is necessary
to investigate the extent to which the eviction might lead to
homelessness, and whose homelessness it would lead to. For
those reasons, and because of the factual lacunae I have
identified on the papers, I am going to postpone the application
sine die and direct the municipality to file a further report dealing
with the two issues that I have set out . The municipality would be
well -advised when this matter comes back to court to brief
attorneys and counsel who are capable of making meaningful
submissions to the c ourt on all of the issues that I have raised in
my judgment . I would be slow, as any court would, to place an
individual civil servant on the spot in circumstances such as thi s –
notwithstanding that Mr. Jofile has been of some assistance.
For all those reasons, I make the following order :
1. The application is postponed sine die.
2. The third respondent, Merafong City Local Municipality, is
directed within 10 days of service of this judgment upon it, to
file a further report under oath from an appropriately
empowered official setting out at least the following :
2.1 the number of people living on the property which is the
subject of this application;
CASE NUMBER-initials 4 JUDGMENT
YEAR-MONTH-DAY
2.2 the extent to which an eviction from the property would
lead to the homelessness of any individual person currently
residing there;
2.3 the date on which a municipal official visited the
property to establish the fact s set out in 2.1 and 2.2 above,
and what they did to establish those facts ;
2.4 the state of readiness of the housing allocated to the
first respondent, Mr Bele , who can be accommodated with
him there, and when they can be accommodated;
2.5 any other matter which is in the opinion of the
municipality appropriate to bring to the c ourt's attention.
3. The applicant and the first and second respondent s
may deliver an affidavit in response to the municipal report
required in paragraph 2 above by no later than 10 days after
they receive it.
4. The question of costs is reserved.
WILSON , J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
2 September 2025