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
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NO. 3936/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 24/10/25
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
MANOKE TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY APPLICANT
And
ELIJA MAFANE 1ST RESPONDENT
SILENCE KGWETE 2ND RESPONDENT
KGOSHI JAKANENG KGWETE 3RD RESPONDENT
TUTU MABELANE 4TH RESPONDENT
FETAKGOMO TUBATSE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY 5TH RESPONDENT
SAPS (BURGERSFORT) 6TH RESPONDENT
UNLAWFUL INVADERS OF APPLICANT’S LAND FURTHER RESPONDENT
(Particulars of further respondents
are unknown to the Applicant)
Delivered: This judgment i s handed down electronically by circulation to the
parties through their legal representatives’ email addresses. The date for the
hand-down is deemed to be 24 October 2025.
JUDGMENT
Masilo AJ
Introduction
[1] On 4 June 2021 the Applicant launched a two -part application, for the
authorization in terms of section 4(2) of PIE and the eviction of the
Respondents from the Property fully described as Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
[2] On 12 August 2021, the court per Semenya DJP in terms of section 4(2)
authorized and granted leave to serve Respondents with an evict ion
application from the farm Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
[3] On 8 February 2024, the court per Ledwaba AJ, extended the section 4(2)
Notice granted by Kganyago J on 12 August 2021 to 5 th March 2025 and
further order that-
“The order referred to in paragraph one above, shall be served by the
sheriff on any new occupiers of Portion 2, Appiesdoorndraai 298KT,
Fetakgomo Tubatse Local Municipality, Burgersfort, Limpopo Province,
in the following manner: -
(i) Displaying the Notice prominently on the poles and public places
close to the area concerned.
(ii) Bring the application and section 4(2) PIE Notice to the attention
of any person at the invaded/property through a loudhailer in
English and any language spoken or understood by the persons.
(iii) The Sheriff’ Return of Service must specifically state that the
above directions have been carried out.”
[4] The First to Fourth Respondent on 4 th October 2021 served and filed an
Answering Affidavit in which they raised two points in limine, namely –
(a) Lack of locus standi; and
(b) Absence of authority to act on behalf of the Applicant.
[5] The parties approached the Office of the Judge President for a preferential
date allocation, and this matter was on 26 August 2025 allocated to be heard
on 23 September 2025. The matter was then set down for hearing as
allocated.
[6] On 23 September 2025 the First to Fourth Respondent, indicated their desire
not to persist with the two points in limine on paginated page 7 at paragraph
6.1 and 7. However, the First to Fourth Respondent then elected to raise a
point in paragraph 27 and 31 of the Answering Affidavit.
[7] The First to Fourth Respondent lamented that the Applicants had not joined
Selby Kgobalale Sekhukhune who was given a permis sion to occupy
(“PTO”), by the Applicant and therefore is actually the only person who has
the right to bring an eviction application. The second point raise in paragraph
31 was that this was a PIE Act application and yet the Founding Affidavit
speaks of an interdict.
[8] The court on the point r egarding non-joinder, raised with the First to Fourth
Respondent that Mr. Selby Kgobalale Sekhukhune deposed to a
confirmatory affidavit in which he confirmed and supported the Applicant’s
application. The court a fter hearing arguments regarding the points raised
granted an ex -tempore judgement in which the court dismissed the point of
non-joinder raised in paragraph 27 of the Answering Affida vit, as Mr. Selby
Kgobalale Sekhukhune though may have direct interest, h e however will not
be adversely affected by the decision of this court in this application as he is
aware and supported the eviction application.
[9] Further, the court dismissed the point regarding the second point in limine,
that the Notice of Motion pr ayers is not supported by the averments in the
Founding Affidavit. The court ex-tempore found that it will be able to make a
determination in the main application irrespective of the claims regarding the
Notice of Motion and the Founding Affidavit.
Background
[10] The Applicant is a traditional authority under Kgos hi Koos Boy Manok, who
has been recognized as a Senior Traditional Leader of the Manoke
Traditional Community. The Manoke Traditional Community’s area of
jurisdiction has been defined in the Sc hedule to Government Gazette No.
1760 of 9 June 1967, under notice no. 812 of 9 June 1967 as follows: -
“AREA OF MANOKE TRIBAL AUTHORITY, SEKHUKHUNELAND
AREA, LYDENBURG DISTRICT
The area consists of the following farms: -
(a) The Trust Farm Alverton No. 274KT; and
(b) The Tribal portion of the farm Appiesdoorndraai No. 298KT”
[11] It appears that in one Jacobus Manok arrived on the farm Appiesdoorndraai
around 1900. In 1903 Jacobus Manok purchased portions of the farm owned
by Gerhadus Schoeman (335/1902) and from Phillip Jeremias Coetzer, MA
Son (423/1908). On 20 April 1911 he purchased a portion of the farm owned
by Hendrik Neethling from his estate represented by Stephanus Coetzee and
Christopher Neethling.
[12] Apparently, in 1911 Mr Atherstone from th e Surveyor General’s office visited
Appliesdoordraai to draw a map of the area, this was part of the land audit in
preparation for the 1913 Land Act. This resulted in SG map 2404 framed in
November 1912 which for the first time divided the farm into demarcated
portions A, B, C and D. The consent document for the subdivision was
obtained from Albert Weir Baker on 19 October 1914 Roelof Schurink on 25
February 1915. The portion belonging to Hendrik Neethling which was
purchased by Jacob Manok, the consent doc uments were signed by two
parties and allocates a portion to Neethling estate.
[13] The only recorded and registered portions of the farm Appiesdoorndraai
298KT in Jacob Manok’s names is specifically portion 2 measuring 1229
morgen 309 R2 under Deed of Tr ansfer T[...]. He further purchased portion 3
measuring 48 morgen 16 R2 Deed of Transfer T[...]
[14] The Manok family in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights Act, 22 of 1994
lodged a land restitution claim before December 1998 cut-off date. This claim
was in June 2000 dismissed by the Regional Land Claims Commission
simply on the basis that the claimant is still residing on the property in
question.
[15] The Manok family sought to make a formal presentation to the Regional
Land Claims Commiss ion to reconsider accepting the claim as valid. The
whole of Appiesdoorndraai 298KT consisting of 16 portion, namely Ptn32,26 -
23,20-1 and Ptn 0 were listed totaling 2090.8674ha. As a result, the Regional
Land Claims Commissioner decided to accept and appro ve the claim as
valid in terms of the provisions of section 2(1) (a) of Act 22 of 1994. The
Regional Land Claims Commissioner also approved the Gazetting and
publication of the gazette in accordance with the provisions of section 11( 1)
(c) of Act 22 of 199 4. The Land Claims Commissioner: Mpumalanga on
10/06/2008 signed and wrote “Proceed to gazette!”
[16] Section 11 of Act 22 of 1994, subsection 7 regulates land after acceptance
and gazetting of the claimed land, it provides that –
“(7) Once a notice has been published in respect of any land and a
temporary note has been made in the records as contemplated in
subsection (6)(b)-
(a) no person may in an improper manner obstruct the passage
of the claim;
(b) no claimant who was resident on the land in ques tion at the
date of commencement of this Act may be evicted from the
said land without the written authority of the Chief Land
Claims Commissioner;
(c) no person shall in any manner whatsoever remove or cause
to be removed, destroy or cause to be destroye d or damage
or cause to be damaged, any improvements upon the land
without the written authority of the Chief Land Claims
Commissioner;
(d) no claimant or other person may enter upon and occupy the
land without the permission of the owner or lawful occupier.”
[17] The above background is relevant insofar as the farm Appiesdoorndraai
298KT is under claim and thus affected by the provisions of Act 22 of 1994
which restricts any development or activities on the land.
[18] After the death of Jacobus Manok, portions were transferred to Abram
Manok for the benefit of the Jacobus Manok heirs. Portion 2 measuring
411364 ha was registered under title deed no. T [...]. Portion 3 measuring
113.0762 ha was registered under title deed no. T [...]. At paragraph 22 of the
Founding Affidavit, the Applicant specifically avers that “The property which
is the subject matter of these proceedings is Appiesdoorndraai 298KT,
Portion 2.”
[19] The Applicant also averred that on 1 August 2007 one Mr Selby Kgobalale
Sekhukhune has been given permission to occupy part of the land. Further
that on 30 June 2008, Mr Selby Kgobalale Sekhukhune was also given
permission to build a driving school and accommodation facilities.
[20] The Applicant avers that starting from 1 March 2021, the First to Fourth
Respondents together with other unknown people invaded the land on which
Sekhukhune holds a PTO and other parts of Portion 2. This averment is not
denied by the Respondents and instead noted this averment. T he First to
Fourth R espondents together with other unknown people deny having
invaded Portion 2, and only contend that Mr SK Sekhukhune is the person
having interest and he should have brought an application or lay criminal
charges. Further, that Mr. SK Sekhukhune is on portion 1, but not portion 0.
[21] The First to Fourth R espondents were allotting stands to several unknown
people. The explanation proffered was that the land no longer belongs to the
applicant as it was allegedly sold. The nub of the First to Fourth
Respondents opposition is that they are not occupying and did not invade
Portion 2, instead they are occupying portion 0 of the farm Appiesdoorndraai
298KT. The deponent to the Respondents Answering Affidavit in paragraph
9 states that “... Portion “0! and Portion “1” of Appiesdoorndraai 298KT are
owned by Government of the Republic of South Africa.”
Application of the law
[22] The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
19 of 1998 (PIE) was adopted with the patent objective of ove rcoming the
past abuses and ensuring that evictions in future took place in a manner
consistent with the values of the new constitutional dispensation.
[23] PIE provisions have to be interpreted against the background of the previous
regulatory framework such as the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 52 of
1951, in terms of which the only question for decision would have been
whether the occupation of the land was unlawful. As soon as it was
determined that the occupiers had no consent to be on the land, they not
only faced summary eviction, they were automatically liable for criminal
prosecution.
[24] Thus, the eviction from land of any person(s) classified and referred to as
squatters was accordingly accomplished through the criminal and not the
civil courts. The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 52 of 1951 was an
essential part of a regulatory framework in a dispensation that gave and
licensed the forced removal of black people from land and compelled them to
live in racially designated locations.
[25] Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 52 of 1951 depersonalized processes that
took no account of the life circumstances of those being expelled , whilst PIE
replaced such with humanized procedures that focused on fairness to all.
People who were regarded as anonymous squatters now became entitled to
dignified and individualized treatment with special consideration for the most
vulnerable, (the elderly, women, children and persons with disability).
[26] With the advent of the new constitutional order, the courts have a new role to
play, that is to strike a balance between illegal eviction and unlawful
occupation. Freeing the courts from their odious role as instruments directed
by statute to effect uncaring removals, the PIE guided them and enjoined
them as to how they should fulfil their new complex and constitutionally
ordained function: when evictions are being sought, the courts are to ensure
that justice and equity prevailed in relation to all concerned.
[27] As with all determination about the reach of constitutionally protected rights,
the starting and ending point of the analysis must be to affirm the values of
human dignity, equality and freedom as enshrined in section 7, which must
be read with section 25.
[28] Property rights are guaranteed in section 25(1), which expressly provides
that “No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general
application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property. This
must be read with section 26, that states – “(1) Everyone has t he right to
have access to adequate housing. (3) No one may be evicted from their
home, or have their ho me demolished, without an order of court made after
considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit
arbitrary evictions.”
[29] The Constitution recogniz es that land rights and the right of access to
housing and of not being arbitrarily evicted, are closely intertwined. Sachs J,
in Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 (1) SA 217 (CC)
posited that –
“[20] There are three salient features of the way the Constitution
approaches the interrelationship between land hunger,
homelessness and respect for property rights. In the first place,
the rights of the dispossessed in relation to land are not
generally delineated in unqualified terms as rights intended to be
immediately self -enforcing. For the main part they presuppose
the adoption of legislative and other measures to strengthen
existing rights of tenure, open up access to land and
progressively provide adequate housing . Thus, the Constitution
is strongly supportive of orderly land reform, but does not
purport to effect transfer of title by constitutional fiat. Nor does it
sanction arbitrary seizure of land, whether by the state or by
landless people. The rights involved in section 26(3) are
defensive rather than affirmative.
[21] A second major feature of this cluster of constitutional provisions
is that through section 26(3) they expressly acknowledge that
eviction of people living in informal settlements may take plac e,
even if it results in loss of a home.
[22] A third aspect of section 26(3) is the emphasis it places on the
need to seek concrete and case -specific solutions to the difficult
problems that arise.”
[30] In general terms, however, a court should be relu ctant to grant an eviction
against relatively settled occupiers unless it is satisfied that a reasonable
alternative is available, even if only as an interim measure pending ultimate
access to housing in the formal housing programme.
[31] A nuanced appreciation of the specific situation in each is required in eviction
matters. Hence, though there may be a wretched uniformity in the conditions
of homelessness and desperation which may have led to unlawful
occupations, on the one hand, and the frustration of landowners at being
obstructed by invaders from enjoyment of their property, the actual details of
the relationships involved are capable of infinite variation.
[32] As indicated the First to Fourth Respondents’ contention is that they are not
in occupation of Portion 2, but rather occupied Portion 0 which is registered
under the government of the Republic of South Africa. As a result of this
position postulated in the Answering Affidavit and advanced in argument in
court, t he First to Fourth Respondents’ representative was quizzed by the
court what prejudice will the respondents suffer, if the order is granted
against them being evicted from Portion 2, as they contend that they are
occupying portion 0. Mr. Mampshika persisted that to the extent that the land
is not identified by the Applicants, the court must dismiss the application with
costs.
[33] The court is unable to appreciate the contention that the land is not identified
and the Applicant came for Portion 2 and may not be granted an order
evicting the Respondents on Portion 0. The Applicant has attached its title
deed in respect of Portion 2 and 3. The Applicant attached proof that it has
lodged a claim for land restitution of the entire farm, Appiesdoorndraai
298KT which has been accepted and app roved for gazetting by the Land
Claims Commissioner: Mpumalanga Province.
[34] The issue whether, the First to Fourth First to Fourth R espondents were
allotting stands to several unknown people are occupying and invaded
Portion 0 and not portion 2 does n ot arise, as the Applicant has lodged a
claim for the entire farm, Appiesdoorndraai 298KT which has been accepted
and approved for gazetting by the Land Claims Commissioner: Mpumalanga
Province. This means that until the claim has been finalized, the provisions
of section 11(7) govern and regulate any activity in respect of the gazette
land.
[35] The date on which the invasion took place is 5 March 2021, which is some
13years after the acceptance of the claim and approval of gazetting. The
First to Fourth Respondents, throughout their opposition do not in any way
claim to be owners or being allocated Portion 0 of Appiesdoorndraai 298 KT
by government when the Third Respondent’s area of jurisdiction was
defined.
[36] Even if their claim is that they are not occupying or allocating land on portion
2 or tribal land portion of the Applicant, their claim is that Portion 0 does not
belong to the Applicant and therefore have no prima facie right to ask for an
order for an interdict or eviction. What is not defi ned is which portions of the
land owned by government constitutes what was gazette as tribal land
portion of the Applicant. This begs the question does Portion “0” form part of
tribal land of the Applicant or not?
[37] It is trite that section 3(6) of the Limpopo Traditional Leadership & Institutions
Act, 2005 expressly provides that “... The Premier must, when recognizing a
traditional community in terms of subsection (4) - (a) simultaneously
determine the territorial area of the t raditional community co ncerned; (c)
within 30 days of the decision publish detail of such recognition by notice in
the Gazette.” A similar provision holds for the Khoisan Act, 2019 and its
predecessor the Framework Act, 2003.
[38] It is rather concerning that two respective Se nior traditional leaders have
deposed to affidavits in this matter over the land Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
What is disconcerting, is that neighbouring Senior Traditional Leaders, whom
one has cause to believe their respective areas of jurisdiction as well as the
pegs of their respective farms should be known after they have been
gazette, are fighting in court about the invasion and allocation of stands by
the other on Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
[39] In paragraph 26 the Third Respondent pleads a bare denial t o the averment
that he pleaded ignorance when Sekhukhune reported the issue to him,
when he was found at his homestead with the fourth Respondent. The Third
Respondent as a Senior Traditional Leader is enjoined not to contravene or
to fail to comply with a ny provision of Limpopo Traditional Leadership Act,
2005 and any other law. This must be read to include section 11 of the
Restitution of Land Rights Act, 1994.
[40] The invasion since 1 March 2021 is not denied by the Respondents , by any
stretch of ima gination. The only query is that the invasion is on portion 0
which is government land. Invasion of land is a concern throughout the
Republic of South Africa, wherein people with no regard or consideration of
who the owners is, create an unplanned burden o n government to put
infrastructure in the direction which was not part of municipal IDPs, as they
are occupying land. It also results in government being met with sporadic
service delivery protest as people demand services in areas that they have
unilaterally decided to inhabit.
[41] This type of self-help, has been a subject of a myriad of judgements
including the Constitutional Court, wherein government found itself wrapped
with an order to have to compensate the owner for its loss . In a democratic
order, there is no room for self-help and lawlessness. Such conduct,
especially from persons in leadership positions ought to be discouraged and
censured by this court.
[42] Our courts have recognized that j ustice and equity require showing special
concern whe n settled communities or individuals are faced with being
uprooted. The longer the unlawful occupiers have been on the land, the
more established they are on their sites and in the neighbourhood, the more
well settled their homes and the more integrated th ey are in terms of
employment, schooling and enjoyment of social amenities, the greater their
claim to the protection of the courts.
[43] A court will accordingly be far more cautious in evicting well -settled families
with strong local ties, than persons who have recently moved on to land and
erected their shelters there. And should it decide that eviction is called for in
the former case, it will be especially astute to ensure that equitable
arrangements are made to diminish its negative impact.
[44] Sachs J at paragraph 32 of the Port Elizabeth Municipality judgement
posited that “ The court is not resolving a civil dispute as to who has rights
under land law; the existence of unlawfulness is the foundation for the
enquiry, not its subject matter. What t he court is called upon to do is to
decide whether, bearing in mind the values of the Constitution, in upholding
and enforcing land rights it is appropriate to issue an order which has the
effect of depriving people of their homes. Of equal concern, it is determining
the conditions under which, if it is just and equitable to gr ant such an order,
the eviction should take place.”
[45] Further, stated that – “In securing the necessary information, the court would
therefore be entitled to go beyond the facts established in the papers before
it. Indeed when the evidence submitted by the parties leaves important
questions of fact obscure, contested or uncertain, the court might be obliged
to procure ways of establishing the true state of affairs, so as to enable it
properly to ‘have regard’ to relevant circumstances.”
[46] The Third Respondent as a Senior Traditional Leader has land earmarked
and identified as his area of jurisdiction. As a Senior Traditional Leader he
has a right to receive new applications for membership into his Traditional
Community. Equally, as a Senior Traditional Leader he has the right and an
obligation to make land available to his subjects, be it for residential,
business or agricultural purposes. This implies that allocation of sites o utside
of must be within his area of jurisdiction. Any allocation outside of his defined
and gazette area of jurisdiction is unlawful.
[47] With the Third Respondent having his defined area of jurisdiction, it then
begs the question, is whether the Third Respondent has availability of
suitable alternative land on which the people that the First to Fourth
Respondent allocated land can be relocated to.
[48] The Constitutional Court in Port Elizabeth Municipality, at paragraph 37 stated
that -
“Thus, PIE expressly requires the court to infuse elements of grace and
compassion into the formal structures of the law. It is called upon to
balance competing interests in a principled way and promote the
constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neigh bourliness
and shared concern. The Constitution and PIE confirm that we are not
islands unto ourselves. The spirit of Ubuntu, part of the deep cultural
heritage of the majority of the population, suffuses the whole
constitutional order. It combines individ ual rights with a communitarian
philosophy.”
[39] It cannot be denied that people who invaded and or were allocated sites by
the First, Second and Fourth Respondent includes women, families with
children and possibly even the elderly and people with disa bility. Hence, it
would be correct to assume that some of the persons to be evicted are
victims of circumstances and the system which has resulted in them having
lack of security of tenure, that they find themselves exposed to the risk of
eviction from Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
[40] Equally it is undisputable that eviction by its nature is ferocious, uncaring and
violently unpleasant. It psychological impact and even its aftermath leaves
families, individuals and corps on its trail. This consequence this cou rt
cannot shy away from or tend a blind eye to it. As correctly pointed out by
Sachs J in Port Elizabeth Municipality, this court is enjoined to infuse
elements of grace and compassion. This court is called upon and must strive
to balance competing interes ts in a principled way and promote the
constitutional vision of a caring society based on good neighbourliness and
shared concern.
[41] The assumption of this court is that the First, Second and Fourth
Respondent must have acted with the knowledge of the Third Respondent.
The funds secured from the allotting of sites ought to have been collected
and paid into the Third Respondent’s traditional community account. Further,
that the person allocated sites on Appiesdoorndraai 298KT by First, Second
and Fourth Respondent are members of or have been accepted into
membership of the Third Respondent’s traditional community.
[42] To this end this court is of the considered view that the people who were
allocated on portion 2, which the Third Respondent claims is p ortion 0, are
members of or have been accepted into membership of the Third
Respondent’s traditional community, who owe their allegiance and pay
homage to the Third Respondent. To allow such people to remain on the
land of the Applicant will cause unending problems between the two
traditional communities, vis a vis ordering that they be returned and the Third
Respondent allocate them sites on his land.
[43] Ubuntu demands that these people who did not allocate themselves sites or
stand on the land belongi ng to the Applicant, and land described as tribal
land of the Applicant, together with land owned by government but under
land restitution claim of the Applicant, which has been accepted as valid and
approved for gazetting, ought not to be thrown to the st reet through forceful
eviction without recourse.
[44] Further, Ubuntu requires that women, families with children and possibly
even the elderly and people with disability must be dealt with sympathetically
and with a measure tapered with consideration a nd empathy. To shy away
from this reality would be remiss of this court, armed with a duty to ensure
that in future evictions people are not dealt with as criminals and is especially
incisive to ensure that equitable arrangements are made to diminish the
eviction’s negative impact.
[45] In order to achieve this objective, of limiting the negative impact, a number of
actions and activities must take place, this must start with the First to Fourth
Respondents within 7 days of this order to compiling a list of all occupants
they have issued and/or sold sites or stands to on Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
Thereafter, first to Fourth Respondents must conduct an audit and compile
list of child headed households, sites occupied by the elderly, women
headed households, h ouseholds with young children or persons with
disability, with specific stand number and contact details of such person
within 30 days of this order and to submit the list to the Sheriff of the court.
[46] Thereafter, Third Respondent must identify land and provide sites on the
land described within his area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the
Applicant, or registered in the name of government which has not been
allocated to his Traditional Community. The allocation of sites by the Third
Respondent must be effected within 60 days of the order. This site allocation
must be done in the order of priority starting with child headed households,
sites occupied by the elderly, women headed households, households with
young children or persons with disability.
[47] The Sheriff of the court in order to ensure that enforcement of the order does
not come as a surprise, must upon receipt of the list of child headed
households, sites occupied by the elderly, women headed households,
households with young child ren or persons with disability, make sure that a
copy is served upon them to ensure that they are made aware of the date
within which to vacate before implementation date.
[48] Further that on selected enforcement date after 15 January 2026, the Sheriff
must identify the child headed households, sites occupied by the elderly,
women headed households, households with young children or persons with
disability and to take specific and attention not to damage their property , but
to ensure that speci al care is taken to assist their orderly movement to the
site provided by the Third Respondent.
[49] This court is therefore satisfied that it is just and equitable that an eviction
order be granted against the invaders of the farm Appiesdoorndraai 298KT.
Further that an appropriate order on cost is that costs must follow the event,
as there is nothing in this matter to warrant that the Applicant not be awarded
its costs for this application.
[50] In the circumstances, the following order is granted -
1. The First to Fourth Respondents are ordered within 7 days of this
order to compile a list of all occupants they have issued and/or sold
sites or stands to up to the date of this order on Appiesdoorndraai
298KT; To conduct an audit and compile list of child headed
households, sites occupied by the elderly, women headed
households, households with young children or persons with
disability, with specific stand num ber and contact details of such
person within 30 days of this order and to submit the list to the
Sheriff of the court.
2. The Third Respondent is ordered to provide sites on the land
described within his area of jurisdiction that does not belong to the
Applicant, or registered in the name of government which has not
been allocated to his Traditional Community. The allocation of sites
by the Third Respondent must be effected within 60 days of this
order, and in order of priority starting with child headed
households, sites occupied by the elderly, women headed
households, households with young children or persons with
disability.
3. The First to Fourth Respondents as well as those occupying the
property by, through or under them, are ordered to vacate the
property named Portion 2, Appiesdoorndraai 298KT, Fetakgomo
Tubatse Local Municipality, Burgersfort, Limpopo Pro vince by no
later than 31 December 2025.
4. Failing, vacation of Portion 2, Appiesdoorndraai 298KT by the First
to Fourth Respondents as well as those occupying the property by,
through or under them in terms of prayer 3 above, the First to
Fourth Respondents as well as those occupying the property by,
through or under them are evicted from the property named Portion
2, Appiesdoorndraai 298KT, Fetakgomo Tubatse Local
Municipality, Burgersfort, Limpopo Province.
5. That in the event that the First to Fourth Respon dents and Further
Respondents, do not vacate the property by 31 December 2025,
the Sheriff of the Court is with effect from 15 January 2026 directed
to take all necessary steps to enforce compliance with this order,
including enlisting the services of priv ate security company, and or
the South African Police Services.
6. The Sheriff of the court is directed in taking all the necessary steps
to enforce compliance with this order, to ensure that upon receipt
of the list of child headed households, sites occupied by the
elderly, women headed households, households with young
children or persons with disability, a copy is served upon them to
ensure that they are made aware of the date within which to vacate
before implementation date.
7. Further that on selected enfor cement date after 15 January 2026,
the Sheriff is directed to identify the child headed households, sites
occupied by the elderly, women headed households, households
with young children or persons with disability and not to damage
their property but to ensure that special care is taken to assist their
orderly movement to the site provided by the Third Respondent.
8. The First to Fourth Respondents are ordered to pay the costs of
this application including costs of counsel on a party and party
scale, such costs to be calculated at scale B.
_______________________
M.H.M. MASILO
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
LIMPOPO DIVISION
APPEARANCES:
FOR APPLICANT : ADV L NKOANA
Instructed by : MT Ramabala Attorneys
per email: admin@mtramabala.co.za
FOR 1st - 4th RESPONDENT : MB Mampshika Attorneys
per email: mbmamps@gmail.com