Reportable:
Clrculate to Judges:
Circulate to Regional Magistrates:
YES / NO
YES / NO
YES / NO
YES / NO Circulate to Magistrates:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION, KIMBERLEY)
In the matter between:
GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
and
OLD DIKWENG COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF; AND PERSONS INTENDING
TO UNLAWFULLY OCCUPY FARM NO. 165 PORTION 1
(THE REMAINING EXTENT) OF THE FARM PHAKANE,
FARM NO 165 NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
AND INFRASTRUCTURE
AND
Case no: 181/2024
Applicant
1st Respondent
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
Case no: 3179/2024
In the matter between:
GA-SEGONYANA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Applicant
and
ANTHONIKHOZA 1 st Respondent
UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF; AND PERSONS INTENDING
TO UNLAWFULLY OCCUPY THE AREA INDICATED BY
FIGURES "STUV" AND "WXYZ" LOCATED ON FARM
NO. 165 PORTION 1 (THE REMAINING EXTENT)
THE FARM PHAKANE, FARM NO 165
NORTHERN CAPE PROVINCE
OLD DIKWENG COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
THE NATIONAL MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS
2
2nd Respondent
3rd Respondent
4th Respondent
Neutral citation: Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v Old Dikweng Communal
Property Association and Others ( 181 /2024 );
Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v A Khoza and Others
(3179/2024) 07 October 2025.
Coram: STANTON J
Heard: 26 August 2025.
Delivered: 07 October 2025.
Summaries: Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v Old Dikweng Communal Property
Association and Others (181/2024) - Urgent application for eviction and interdicts in
respect of immovable property- State is the owner of the land - Municipality does not
have locus standi - Application dismissed.
Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v A Khoza and Others (3179/2024) - Urgent
application for cessation of building activities and removal of illegal structures - Tribal
land falls within Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013
(" SPLUMA 'J - Demolition not ordered - Ordering compliance with SPLUMA just and
fair.
ORDER
In Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v Old D ikweng Communal Property Association
and Others (181/2024):
1. The rule nisi is discharged.
3
2. Part A and B of the application are dismissed.
3. The applicant shall pay the first respondent's costs on a party and party
scale B as set out in Rule 69(7) read with Rule 67 A(3) of the Uniform
Rules of Court.
In Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality v A Khoza and Others (3179/2024):
1. The rule nisi issued in respect of the first respondent is discharged.
2. The second and third respondents, including Mr TCJ Matolo, are
interdicted and ordered to cease all building activities, renovations,
paving, plumbing, landscaping and/or any other related activities, and/or
commenc ing with the erection of new structures on the property on the
area indicated by way of figures "STUV " and "WXYZ " on annexure MT1
to the founding affidavit, located on Farm No. 165, (Remaining Extent,
the Farm Phakane, Farm No . 165, Northern Cape Province), without
complying with s 33(1) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use
Management Act 16 of 2013.
3. The applicant is ordered to provide the second and third respondents
with the requirements for the submission of building plans ( and the
requirements for the subsequent approval thereof), in writing, within 30
(thirty) days of this order.
4. The second and third respondents, including Mr TCJ Matolo, are ordered
to comp ly with such requirements within three (3) months of the provision
thereof.
5. No person shall reside or occupy or continue to reside within any
structure on the property on the area indicated by way of figures "STUV "
and "WXYZ " on annexure MT1 to the founding affidavit, located on Farm
No. 165, (Remaining Extent, the Farm Phakane, Farm No. 165, Northern
Cape Province) until there is full compliance with s 33( 1) of the Spatial
Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013.
4
6. The third respondent shall pay the applicant's costs on a party and party
scale B as set out in Rule 69(7) read with Rule 67 A(3) of the Uniform
Rules of Court.
JUDGMENT
Stanton J
Case number 181/2024:
Introduction:
[1] On 25 January 2024, on an urgent ex parte basis, the following relief was granted
to the Ga-Segonyana Local Municipality ("the Municipality"):
1.1 Consent for the issuing and service under the provisions of s 4(2) and s 6
of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land
Act 19 of 1998 ("PIE") in respect of the first respondent, the Old Dikweng
Communal Property Association ("the CPA ") and the second respondent,
the unlawful occupiers of and persons intending to unlawfully occupy ("the
occupiers") (jointly "the respondents") Farm No . 165 Portion 1 (the
Remaining Extent) of the Farm Phakane ("the farm");
1.2 A rule nisi was issued, calling upon the respondents to show cause why
the following interdictory relief should not be made final:
1.2.1 The CPA be interdicted and restrained from in any way or manner
interfering with or dealing with the farm, not limited to claiming or
holding out to have authority to dispose, allocate or alienate land;
1.2.2 The CPA be interdicted from inviting, enticing, promoting or in any
manner, whether directly or indirectly, encouraging the occupiers,
5
or any other persons, from moving onto, and or occupying the
farm, without the Municipality's written consent;
1.2.3 The respondents be interdicted and restrained from erecting any
further homes and/or abodes and/or dwellings and/or other
structures on the farm;
1.2.4 The respondents be interdicted and restrained from taking any
further occupation and/or occupying and/or inhabiting any home
and/or dwelling and/or abode and/or other structure, which might
have been erected on the farm or any portion thereof;
1.2.5 The respondents be prohibited from conducting any activity
whatsoever on the farm that is aimed either directly and/or
indirectly at establishing a home and/or dwelling and/or abode
and/or other structure on the farm; and
1.2.6 The respondents be interdicted from trespassing on the farm or
committing any offence in terms of s 1 of the Trespass Act 6 of
1959.
("the main application")
[2] In Part B of the main application, the Municipality seeks an order for the eviction
of any person forming part of the respondents and the demolition of all
structures erected on the farm.
[3] On 08 March 2024, the rule nisi was extended, and the following two further
interim orders with immediate effect were incorporated therein by agreement:
3.1 Any person forming part of the respondents who might have taken
occupation of any home , dwelling, abode, shack and/or structure on the
farm, be evicted;
3.2 The respondents be ordered to demolish and remove any structures they
may have erected on the farm;
6
3.3 Should such a person who might have taken occupation of any home ,
dwelling, abode, shack and/or structure on the farm not immediately
vacate same together w ith his/her belongings and demolish and remove
such structure by not later than 12h00, 45 days after the granting of the
final order, the Municipality and/or the sheriff for the district of Kuruman,
assisted by the South African Police Service, be authorised and ordered
to forthwith evict such a respondent from the structures and to demolish
and remove the structures from the farm.
("the additional interdict")
[4] On 26 July 2024, by agreement, the additional interdict was amended to reflect
that it would not operate with immediate effect.
[5] The rule nisi was extended on various occasions, and it was ordered that it
should be adjudicated simultaneously with the interlocutory application issued
by the Municipality under case number 3179/2024 ("the interlocutory
application"). The two matters were heard on 26 August 2025, the final return
date of both rules nisi.
[6] Only the CPA opposes the application.
[7] On 25 October 2024, the Minister of Public Works and Infrastructure ("the
Minister") was joined by the Municipality as the third respondent.
The Municipality's case:
[8] The Municipality, in support of the relief sought, states that it is enjoined to issue
the main application as:
8.1 It is the owner of the farm as the farm is registered in the name of the
North West Provincial Government under title deed T731/1979BPA;
7
8.2 It did not grant the occupiers consent to occupy or to erect structures on
the farm;
8.3 It is the person in control of the farm as defined in PIE;
8.4 It is empowered bys 151 (3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, 1996 ("the Constitution") to govern the local government affairs
within the municipal districts of inter a/ia Kuruman , Mothibistad and
Kudumane, within which area the farm is located;
8.5 By virtue of s 156( 1) of the Constitution, it is the executive authority in
respect of and it has the right to administer local government matters
pertaining to inter alia housing, population, development, regional
planning and development, welfare services, building regulations,
municipal health services, and water and sanitation services.
[9] The Municipality furthermore contends that it is entitled to the interdictory relief,
based on the provisions of PIE.
The CPA's case:
(1 OJ The gist of the CPA's opposition to the main application is that the Municipality
is not the owner of the farm, but that the CPA is either the owner of the farm,
historically as tribal land of the CPA's members , or that it has been granted
permission by the owner of the farm to occupy same. It hence persists that the
occupiers are in lawful occupation of the farm and that the Municipality does not
have the necessary locus standi to act herein.
[11] In addition, the CPA raises the following points in limine:
11.1 PIE does not find application, and an application under the Extension of
Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 falls within the purview of the Land
Claims Court;
8
11.2 It asserts that the Municipality has failed to join the Department of
Cooperative Governance, Human Settlements and Traditional Affairs
("COGHSTA"), the Seeding Sub Tribal Authority and the Batlhaping Ba
Phudutswana Ba Ga Jantjie Tribal Authority, the owners of the fam1;
11.3 The Municipality has failed to make out a case for urgency; and
11.4 The Municipality did not comply with Rule 41 A of the Uniform Rules of
Court or with s 4 and 6 of PIE.
[12] On 09 November 2024, an explanatory affidavit in the interlocutory application
was filed on behalf of the Minister ("the explanatory affidavit").
[13) The Municipality did not file a replying affidavit (or a supplementary affidavit) to
the CPA's answering and supplementary affidavits. Neither did it file an affidavit
in response to the Minister's explanatory affidavit.
Evaluation:
[14] The explanatory affidavit is pertinent to the adjudication of the main application
and states:
'3.1.1 The land in question is currently vested in the Department of Rural Development
and Land Reform, proof of this can be found on the extract from the Land
Administration Site system annexed and marked DPW1;
3.1.2 The Applicant is seeking an eviction order to be granted against the CPA and
illegal occupiers under case number 181/2024, before this honourable court;
3.1.3 The Applicant is not the owner of nor the person in charge of the land in
question; and
3.1.4 There is no proof that the land owner, the Department of Rural Developmen t
and Land Reform, has authorised the Municipality (Applicant herein) to act
against illegal invaders.'
9
[15] The Municipality concedes in its heads of argument in the interlocutory
application that it is not the owner of the farm, and that it could thus not proceed
with the main application relying on the provisions of PIE; and that the
respondents are in lawful occupation of the farm.
[16] Mr SJ Rautenbach, on behalf of the Municipality, attempted to persuade me to
grant the remaining relief pertaining to the demolishing of the structures. This
argument is unmeritorious as the Municipality placed no reliance on the Spatial
Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013 ("SPLUMA ") in the main
application.
Conclusion:
[17) The Municipality is not the registered owner of the farm and the occupiers are
in lawful occupation thereof.
[18] The point in limine pertaining to the Municipality's locus standi is dispositive of
the matter, and I therefore do not deal with the merits of the ma in application or
the remaining points in limine.
[19) As a result, the rule nisi granted on 25 January 2024, together with the
interdictory relief, should be discharged.
Costs:
[20] In my view, the Municipality should have, at the earliest, on 10 November 2024,
requested that the rule nisi be discharged, and also withdraw Part B of the main
application. It, however, failed to do so. The Municipality, albeit on the incorrect
basis of SPLUMA, persisted with the application, I am, however, not persuaded
that this justifies a punitive cost order in respect of the period from 10 November
2024.
[21] Wherefore the following order is made in case number 181/2024:
1. The rule nisi is discharged.
10
2. Part A and B of the application are dismissed.
3. The applicant shall pay the first respondent's costs on a party and party
scale B as set out in Rule 69(7) read with Rule 67A(3) of the Uniform
Rules of Court.
Case number 3179/2024:
Introduction:
[22] On 29 November 2024, wh ilst the main application was pending, the
Municipality issued the interlocutory application on an urgent basis, requesting
that:
22.1. The first respondent, Mr A Khoza and the second respondent, the
unlawful occupiers of, and persons intending to occupy {"the occupiers")
the area indicated by way of figures "STUV " and "WXYZ" on annexure
MT1 to the founding affidavit, located on Farm No. 165, (Remaining
Extent, the Farm Phakane, Farm No . 165, Northern Cape Province) ("the
properties") be interdicted and ordered to cease all building activities,
renovations, paving, plumbing, landscaping and/or any other related
activities, pertaining to the illegal construction erected on the properties;
22.2. Mr Khoza and the occupiers be ordered to take all necessary steps to
remove any and all illegal constructions on the properties within 15 days,
failing which, the Municipality be authorised to remove the illegal
structures, at the costs of Mr Khoza and the occupiers; and
22.3. In the alternative to prayers referred to in paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2
above, a rule nisi be issued on similar terms and that Mr Khoza and the
occupiers be interdicted and restrained from in any way or manner
interfering with or dealing with the properties that belong to the
Municipality.
11
The Municipality's case:
[23] The interlocutory application concerns a larger portion of the farm than the main
application.
[24) On 14 November 2024, the Municipal officials visited the properties to monitor
whether possible illegal occupation had taken place since the rule nisi in the
main application had been granted. During the site visit, they noted that flats or
townhouses were being constructed, and a foundation for a house was
prepared. The builders on the site refused to provide the officials with the names
of the owners. The Municipality avers that, despite the pending main application,
it is obliged to approach the Court on an urgent basis for a further interdict as
the illegal construction of buildings continued.
[25) On 15 November 2024, a notice in terms of s 32(2)(a) of SPLUMA, and a notice
in terms of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of
1977 ("the Building Standards Act") was issued to Mr Khoza as he appeared to
be the head contractor on the site. Mr Khoza indicated that he is merely the
builder and not the owner of the building.
[26] Despite the notices, the construction continued, taking place on un-seNiced
land without the provision of water, sewerage or electricity.
[27] The Municipality contends that it has established a clear right to the relief sought
as:
27.1 The properties fall within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Municipality;
27.2 The Municipality has a duty to prevent the construction and occupation
of the structures by virtue of s 151 (3), 156(1) and 24 of the Constitution;
27.3 The Municipality is entitled to exercise all powers and duties entrusted to
it by law, which includes the functions prescribed by the Building
Standards Act and its regulations,1 that stipulate: (a) Persons may only
1 National Building Regulations, GN R2378, GG 12780, 12 October 1990.
12
commence with building works after a municipality has approved the
building plans (s 4 of the Building Standards Act, read with regulation A 1,
A2 and A4); (b) It is prohibited to use a building for any other purpose
than the purpose indicated on, and for which the building plans were
approved (regulation A25(1 )); (c) Any material deviation from a building
plan must be approved (regulation A25(5)); (d) A mun icipality is
empowered to serve a notice on a person not complying with regulation
A25(5) to immediately stop the erection of the building or to comply with
the plan; and (e) In terms of regulation A25(7), a municipality may serve
a notice on the owner of the building, ordering such owner to rectify or
demolish the building in question.
27.4 Section 32(1) and (2) of SPLUMA, in part, stipulate:
'(1) A municipality must pass by-laws aimed at enforcing its land use
scheme.
(2) A municipality may apply to a court for an order -
(a) Interdicting any person from using land in contravention of its
land use scheme;
(b) Authorising the demolition of any structure erected on land in
contravention of its land use scheme ... ;
(c) Directing any other appropriate preventative or remedial
measure.'
[28] The Municipality maintains that it has made out a case for a final interdict as:
28.1 Irreparable harm will occur if the unlawful construction is allowed to
continue, which includes a plethora of health hazards and violations not
limited to: (a) detrimental unhealthy and unhygienic conditions to the
occupiers contrary to environmental law, resulting from the discharge of
sewerage; (b) unlawful electrical connections that may result in fatalities
13
and fires; and (c) the negative impact on the planned development of the
land; and
28.2 It has no alternative remedy as the illegal construction has not ceased.
The respondents' case:
(29] Mr Khoza and the CPA Gointly "the· respondents") opposed the application. In
addition to their opposition on the merits of the application, they raised three
points in limine: (a) Lack of locus standi and jurisdiction; (b) The misjoinder of
the occupiers as they are in lawful occupation of the land by virtue of their
membership of the CPA; and (c) Lack of urgency.
[30] The occupiers did not oppose the application. The Minister filed the explanatory
affidavit and a notice to abide.
(31) According to the respondents:
31.1 The land in ques.tion is registered in the name of the National Minister of
Public Works. Further, on 24 July 1992, the South African Government
allocated the land to the Batlhaphing Ba Phudutswana Ba Ga Jante
Tribal Authority that granted the CPA permission to occupy the land on
15 November 2017;
31.2 The Municipality's By-Laws are not applicable to the CPA or to Mr Khoza ,
the contractor who is not a member of the CPA. The reason being that
the structures are situated on tribal land, with the result that the occupiers
are lawful occupiers and all structures are thus legal; and
31.3 The CPA granted permission to Mr TCJ Matolo, the owner of the building
and a member of the CPA , to occupy and erect structures on the portion
of the farm.
14
[32] After hearing argument, a rule nisi was granted on 09 December 2024, with a
return date of 28 February 2025. The rule nisi was thereafter extended on
various occasions, to be heard with the main application.
[33] Mr JC Tredoux, on behalf of the CPA, argued that it is not competent to grant
the relief against the respondents:
33.1 Due to the concession by the Municipality in the main application that
occupiers of the farm are 'in lawful· occupation, and the second
respondent ( cited as unlawful ;occupiers) doe~ therefore not exist; and
33.2 The Municipality should have cited Mr Matolo as Mr Khoza is merely his
contractor and not the owner of the structure.
[34] In addition, he submitted that the rule nisi should be discharged as:
34.1 The Municipality lacks locus standi and does not have jurisdiction over
the properties;
34.2 The Municipality failed to prove that the land in question falls within its
municipal boundaries, and failed to establish a clear right, irreparable
harm or that it does not have a satisfactory alternative remedy; and
34.3 The Municipality failed to prove the continued construction activities as
the structures were erected prior to the launch of the interlocutory
application.
Evaluation:
[35] The crux of the matter for adjudication is whether the Municipality has locus
standi in respect of the relief it seeks.
[36] The first question to be answered is whether the properties fall within the
jurisdictional boundaries of the Municipality.
15
(37] I am satisfied that the objective evidence provided by the Municipality,2 the
CPA 3 and the Minister's Land Administration Site System document4 confirm
that the farm Phakane falls within the jurisdiction of the Greater Kuruman
Development area, and therefore, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the
Municipality.
[38] The next question to be answered is whether the Municipality can assert its
authority over the properties constructed on tribal land.
{39]. SPLUMA ·clearly seeks to.ensure .. a consistent approach to town planning in
South Africa. The SPLUMA preamble recognises the fact that:
' ... many people in South Africa continue to· ltve and work in places defined and
influenced by past spatial planning and land use laws and practices which were based
on racial inequality, segregation a~d .unsustainable settlement patterns; ...
it is necessary that a uniform, reco_gnisable and comprehensive system of spatial
planning and land use management be established throughout the Republic to ma intain
economic unity, equal opportunity and equal access to government services; ...
principles, policies, directives and national norms and standards required to achieve
urban, rural, municipal, provincial, regional and national goals and objectives through
spatial planning and land use .management should be established.'
(40] Section 2 of SPLUMA provides:
'(1) This Act applies to the entire area of the Re public and is legislation enacted in
terms of-
(a) section 155 (7) of the Constitution insofar as it regulates mun icipal planning;
and
(b) section 44 (2) of the Constitution insofar as it regulates provincial planning.
2 Replying affidavit para 49 and annexure R14.
3 Supplementary affidavit para 38 and annexure SA 1 at 221.
4 Annexure DPW1 to the Explanatory affidavit from the Minister of Public Works at 161.
16
(2) Except as provided for in this Act, no legislation not repealed by this Act may
prescribe an alternative or parallel mechanism, measure, institution or system on
spatial planning, land use, land use management and land development in a
manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.' (My emphasis underlined.)
[41] Section 24(2)( c) of SPLUMA provides that a land use scheme adopted in terms
of subsection {1) must:
' ... include provisions that permit the incremental introduction of land use management
and regul~tion in areas under traditional leadership, rural areas, informal settlements.
slums and areas not previously subject to a land use scheme.' (My emphasis
underlined.)
[42] Useful guidance can be sought in Fono and another v Port St Johns
. . ., .
Municipality5 ("Fono'J, where the headnote reads:
The second appellant (a tribal authority) acquired land pursuant to a land claim lodged
in terms o1 the Restitution of Land Ri~hts Act 22 of ~994. The first appellant (Mr Fono)
began construction on the land wit~out any approved building plans. After a mun icipal
official visited the land, Mr Fono was issued with a letter informing him that he was in
breach of municipal town planning and building by-laws, the provisions of the National
Building Regulations and Building_ Standards Act (the Building Standards Act) and the
Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA). It was demanded that he
cease buil<;ling operations immed iately. He did not comply and the mun icipality
launched an urgent application in the High Court for appropriate relief. The court of first
instance dismissed the application, upholding Mr Fono's contention that the Building
Standards Act was not applicable in the territory of the former Transkei. It also found
that the mun icipality was unable to prove'that Mr Fono had contravened the provisions
of either its by-laws or SPLUMA. However, the full court upheld an appeal by the
of either its by-laws or SPLUMA. However, the full court upheld an appeal by the
mun icipality. That led to the present appeal , , , [before the Supreme Court of Appeal
where it was inter alia held that s 32 of SPLUMAJ empowered a municipality to appoint
a municipal official or any other person as an inspector to investigate any non
compliance with its land use scheme .' (My emphasis underlined.)
[43] In a very recent unreported judgment of Ulundi Municipality v Mpungose and
5 (2024] JOL 67694 (SCA).
17
Others,6 the Court came to the conclusion that municipalities were required to
extend their planning and land use management beyond the traditional township
boundaries; and that SPLUMA applies to all land in South Africa including tribal
land, although it is not strictly enforced in tribal areas. (My emphasis underlined.)
Conclusion:
[44] • 1 am p.er.su.aded that SPLUMA applies to the properties, and that the Municipality
has the • jurisdictional authority to ' enforce the provisions of the Building . . ",
Standards Act and SPLUMA within· its area of jurisdiction.
'[45] It consequently follows that the Municipality can exercise its right to enforce
these provisions irrespective of whet~er the occupants are lawfully or unla~ully
occupying, the land on whi~h the $1ructures are erected. The point in fimine
pertaining to the misjoinder of the occupiers stands to be dismissed.
[46] I am also satisfied that the Municipality has established that it: (a) Has a clear
right; (b) Has no alternative remedy in the circumstances, and {c), Has an
apprehension of irreparable harm ifthe relief is•not granted. The point in limine
pertaining to a lack of urgency stands to be dismissed in light of the
apprehension of irreparable·harm·under the circumstances.
[47] SPLUMA 's preamble recognises the fact that 'mt:iny people in South Africa
continue to live and work in places • defined arid influenced by past spatial
planning ·and land use la~s and pr~cfices which we .re based on racial inequality,
segregation and unsustainable settlement patterns'.
[48] Section 32(2)(c) of the SPLUMA grants municipalities a broad discretion. It . .. .
allows a municipality, in the event,.o.f a contravention of its land use scheme, to
apply for an interdict, a· demolit_ion order or an order 'directing any other
appropriate preventative or remedial measure'. There can accordingly be little
doubt that courts have a wider discretion in respect of the type of relief they may
doubt that courts have a wider discretion in respect of the type of relief they may
grant in the event of non-compliance with s 33 of the SPLUMA. 7 That discretion
6 {6551 /2020) [2025] ZAKZPHC 73 (24 July 2025) at paras 11 - 13.
7 Fono supra fn 5 para 4 7.
18
must, of course, be exercised judiciously and will depend on the facts of each
case.
[49] The Municipality persists that the structures should be demolished. I consider
that if demolition was to be ordered, some owners might lose a considerable
amount of money as the construction is well underway.
[50] ·In terms of s 32 of the SPLUMA, a municipality is empowered to appoint a
municipal .official or any other person as an inspector to investigate any non
compliance with its land use scheme : Section 32(.5) vests extensive powers in
the duly appointed municipal official or inspector. And in terms of s 32(11 ), such
a functioriary may issue· a· comJ}Hance notice·; in the prescribed form, to· the
person in charge of the property.
[51) In my view, an order in these terms must be preferable to a demolition order. It
will ensure that the individuals will only be allowed to proceed w ith the
construction after a duly appointed official has inspected the property', the
individuals have subm itted the necessary building plans for approval and have
complied with any compliance notice issued by that official. Should they fail to
comply, the Municipality will have the option of applying to a competent court
for a demolition order, on the same papers, duly supplemented, if necessary.
[52] The rule. nisi granted in resp.ect of Mr Khoza was , however, not competent and
should be discharged as he was Mr Matolo's contractor.
[53] Although Mr Matolo was not cited by name, he is a member of the CPA , and the
orders granted should also be binding on him.
[54] For these reasons, I make the following final order:
1. The rule nisi issued in respect of the first respondent is discharged.
2. The second and third respondents, including Mr TC J M atolo, are
interdicted and ordered to cease all building activities, renovations,
paving, plum bing, landscaping and/or any other related activities, and/or
19
commencing with the erection of new structures on the property on the
area indicated by way of figures "STUV" and "WXY Z" on annexure MT1
to the founding affidavit, located on Farm No . 165, (Remaining Extent,
the Farm Phakane, Farm No . 165, Northern Cape Province), without
complying with s 33(1) of the Spatial Planning and Land Use
Management Act 16 of 2013 ...
3. ..The applicant is ordered to 'provide·the second and third respondents
with the requirements for 'the .submission of building plans (and the
re·quirements for the· subsequent-approval thereof), in writing, within 30
(thirty) days of this order. •. •. • • •
4. ·Tlae second and third·respond~:mts; including Mr TC J Matolo, are ordered
:to·comply with such requirements within three (3) months of the provision
thereof.
5. No person shall reside or occupy or continue to reside within any building
on the property on. the area. !ndicat~q by way of figures "STUV " and
'WXYZ " on annexl!re MT1 to the foun_ding affidavit, located on Farm No. • . . · ·;. • . : . '•
:165, (Remaining E_xtent, the. Farm Phakane, Farm No . 165, Northern
Cape Province) until there is.full compliance withs 33(1) of the Spatial
Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013.
6. The third respondent sha!I pay the applicant's costs on a party and party
• · .. ·. ,. •,. , . ' .
scale B as set out in Rule 69(7) read with Rule 67A(3) of the Uniform
Rules of Court.
STANTON J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
NORTHERN CAPE DIVISION
Appearances
On behalf of the applicant:
On instruction of:
Care of:
On behalf of the third respondent:
On instruction of:
Adv JS Rautenbach
Peyper Attorneys
Van de Wall Inc.
Adv JC Tredoux
MatlejoaAe Attorneys
20