1
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: 2025-137575
In the matter between
J N Sentsho & 105 Others
(as listed in Annexure A) 1
st to 106 Applicants
S Phiri and 118 Others
(as listed in Annexure B) 107
th to 226th Applicants
and
Germiston Phase 2 Housing Company (Pty) Ltd
t/a Ekurhuleni Housing Company
(Registration Number 2000/007937/07) 1st Respondent
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2
nd Respondent
In re:
Germiston Phase 2 Housing Company (Pty) Ltd
t/a Ekurhuleni Housing Company
(Registration Number 2000/007937/07) Applicant
J N Sentsho & 105 Others
(as listed in Annexure A) 1
st to 106th Respondents
Any Further Unlawful Occupiers of the
Units identified in Annexure A 107
th Respondent
S Phiri and 118 Others
(as listed in Annexure B) 108th to 257th Respondents
Reportable: No
Of Interest to other Judges: No
19 November 2025 Vally J
2
Any Further Unlawful Occupiers of the
Units identified in Annexure B 258th Respondent
Any Further Unlawful Occupiers of the
Units identified in Annexure B 259th Respondents
Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 260th Respondent
Msikinya, Asanda 261
st Respondent
Nemakonde, Robert 262
nd Respondent
____________________________________________________________________
Judgment
Vally J
Introduction
[1] Before me is an application brought urgently for the reconsideration of an
order issued by me on 23 September 2025 in the urgent court (the order).
The application was brought in terms of s 5 of the Prevention of the Illegal
Eviction for and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1988 (PIE) as well as Rule
6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court (Rules) . The parties, for convenience
sake, shall be referred to as they were cited in the main application which
resulted in the order being issued. This reconsideration application is
brought in terms of rule 6(12)(c) of the Rules.
[2] The order was issu ed without hearing the respondents. Some of the
respondents though present in Court chose to remain silent when the matter
was called. They refused to engage the Court when asked if they wished to
oppose the application or say something. The order reads as follows:
1 The forms and service provided for in the rules is dispensed with and
1 The forms and service provided for in the rules is dispensed with and
the matter is heard as one of urgency.
2. The order for interim eviction, under the above case number, dated 2
September 2025 (“order”), is stayed subject to the following:
3
2.1 each individual occupier, who intends to pursue a
reconsideration of the order, is to deliver an affidavit, setting
out the grounds for the reconsideration of the order, on or
before 6 October 2025.
2.2 attorney Shumani F [Silamulele], is to set down the
reconsideration application for hearing, on 14 October 2025,
and serve a notice of set down on the respondents [a
reference to the EHCO and others] on or before 9 October
2025.
3. In the event that paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 are not complied with, the
stay granted in paragraph 2 shall lapse.
4. The stay granted in paragraph 2 above shall, subject to compliance
with paragraphs 2.1 to 2.2 above remain operative until 14 October
2025, whereafter same shall lapse.’
[3] It is necessary to read this order together with an order issued on 2
September 2025. That order was also granted by myself. It reads:
1. Pending the finalisation of proceedings in terms of s 4 of the
Prevention of Illegal Eviction for and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act,
1988 (PIE), the 1 st to 259 Respondents, and all those occupying the
property by, through or under them (collectively ‘the occupiers’) are
evicted from the properties known as Airport Pari Phase 1, described
as Erf 5 [… ] Airport Park Extension 2, Registration Division I.R.,
Gauteng situate at C[… ] E[…] and G[…] Streets, Germiston, 1401 and
Airport Park Phase 2, described as Erven 6[ …] and 6[…] Airport Park
Extension 2, Registration Division I.R., Gauteng situate at Corner End
and Joubert Streets, Germiston, 1401 (‘the properties’)
2. The occupiers are ordered and directed to vacate the properties within
14 days of this order.
3. In the event that the occupiers do not vacate the properties in terms of
paragraph 2 above, the sheriff of the court, and/or his lawfully
4
appointed deputy, is authorised and directed to evic t the occupiers
from the properties.
4. The 261 st and 262 nd Respondents in particular, and the occupiers in
general, are ordered and directed immediately to comply with the
order of Honourable Wepener J of 11 October 2022, annexed hereto
as “A”.
5. The sheriff of the court, and/ or his/her lawfully appointed deputy, is
authorised and directed to approach the South African Police
Department for any assistance s/he may deem necessary and
appropriate in the execution/enforcement of any order of court.
6. The form and contents of the draft notice in terms of section 4(2) of
PIE (‘the section 4(2) notice’), annexed hereto as “B”, is authorised by
this court in anticipation of Part “C” of this application.
7. The registrar of the court is authorised and direc ted to insert the
hearing date in respect of part “C” of the application in the body of the
s 4(2) notice, and to endorse such s 4(2) notice prior to service
thereof.
8. The occupiers and the 261 st and 262 nd Respondents are to pay the
costs of parts “A” and “B” of this application, jointly and severally, the
one paying the other to be absolved.’
[4] Some of the respondents affected by the order have chosen to bring this
application for a reconsideration of the order. These respondents can be
categorised into two groups: one group consisting of 71 respondents
represented by a firm of attorneys, Sil amulela Attorneys (represented
respondents), and another group consisting of 60 individuals who are self -
represented (unrepresented respondents) . The group represented by
Silulemela filed a notice of motion together with a founding affidavit deposed
to by one of them , together with a confirmatory affidavit deposed to by each
of them. The applicant resists the application.
5
[5] As mentioned, this application is brought in terms of s 5 of the PIE Act.
Section 5(1) which is of particular relevance reads:
‘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.
’
[6] Each unrepresented respondent filed an affidavit. Save for the fact that each
of them provided a very brief account of his/her personal circumstances they
all denied that they had vandalised the unit each of them and their families
reside in. As for their personal circumstances, they each said s/he is
unemployed and has nowhere else to go. All of them do not deny failing to
pay the rental for over five years. At the same time, each one admits to being
indebted to the applicant for a considerable amount of money because of the
non-payment of her/his rental obligation. Each one denies that the non-
payment is a result of a joint decision to boycott the payment of any rental.
Some were willing to admit that they believe that the applicant should
transfer ownership of the properties to them , and they all admit having
stopped paying at about the same time. They all say they cannot afford the
rental.
[7] The represented respondents did not put up any evidence about their
personal circumstances , nor did they say anything about the considerable
personal circumstances , nor did they say anything about the considerable
debt each one of them has accumulated for not paying rent since about
2020. They raised concerns about the process adopted by the applicant in
6
coming to court. They decided to challenge the application on mainly legal
grounds. These are:
a. First, the applicant has failed to satisfy the test for urgency and as such
the order should be reconsidered; the order of 2 September 2025 set
aside, and the matter should be struck from the roll.
b. Second, the applicant has failed to show that it is in danger of suffering
imminent harm and therefore fails to meet a peremptory requirement in
terms of s 5(1)(a) of the PIE Act. H ence the order should be
reconsidered and replaced with one saying that the application is
dismissed.
c. Third, the applicant has an alternative remedy in terms of s 4 of the PIE
Act and therefore the application ought to have failed in order to
overcome the hurdle placed upon it by s 5(1)(c) of the PIE Act.
[8] All three claims are , as I show below , without merit. But first it needs to be
said that the court has a very wide discretion when attending to an
application brought in terms of rule 6(12)(c) for reconsideration of its order.
Factors that are relevant here are (i) the reasons for the absence of the party
against whom the order was granted, (ii) the nature of the order granted, (iii)
the period during which it has remained operative, (iv) the convenience of
the parties, (v) whether imbalance or injustice has resulted, and (vi) whether
alternative remedies are available to the party seeking the reconsideration.1
[9] None of the respondents have furnished an explanation for their absence
from court when the matter was called on 2 September 2025. In fact , some
of them were present but chose to remain anonymous as well as silent when
the application was called and was being considered. These respondents at
the very least wilfully disregarded the proceedings and therefore the
reconsideration remedy does not avail them. As for the other s, as none of
them explained their absence, the C ourt is no wiser as to whether they
them explained their absence, the C ourt is no wiser as to whether they
wilfully absented themselves from the hearing. It is for them to at the very
least put up some credible evidence to show they did not. For this reason
1 The Fonarun Naree: Afgri Grai Marketing (Pty) Ltd v Trustees, Copenship Bulkers A/S (In
Liquidation) 2008 (3) SA 110 (SCA), para 10. Erasmus Superior Court Practice Vol 2, D1 -89 and the
cases there cited.
7
alone, the application for reconsideration should be dismissed with costs.
However, given that they stand to be evicted from their homes, albeit
temporarily, I held it to be prudent to allow them to present the merits of their
case.
[10] The represented respondents challenged the applicant’s case on the merits
by raising only legal issues. They put up no evidence of their own. They said
that the applicant should have brought the application as soon as the
respondents failed to pay their rent which was around 2020 or anytime
thereafter. It should not have waited until August 2025 which is when it
brought the application. By waiting, it allowed the situation to develop into an
emergency – one that could have been averted.
[11] It is true the applicant could have brought the application earlier. But that
does not detract from the other equally if not more important fact that the
respondents continued to breach their contract all this time, and as a result
exacerbated the applicant’s difficulties to the point its very existence is now
in peril. They continued to live for free. In other words, the y benefited
handsomely, while the applicant failed to take advantage of the legal
recourse available to it. In the meantime, the applicant suffered significant
financial and other harm. It put up credible evidence to show that the
respondents are in arrears to the tune of some R77m rands , and that as a
result it cannot continue with its operations at all , nor can it protect its
property as it is financially ruined. Granting a temporary interdict and
allowing it to restore its financial health by preventing any further losses
incurred as a result of the non- payment of the rental is the only remedy
available to it. The urgent need for a remedy is certainly there, especially
since all the respondents (represented and unrepresented) accept that the
applicant is owed such a large sum of money because of their actions . The
applicant is owed such a large sum of money because of their actions . The
applicant also put up credible evidence to show that recently it endured a
violent protest from the respondents. Save to put up a bare denial, t he
respondents did not meet this evidence. The applicant further showed that it
has lost all control of the properties . Its agents cannot enter the property
without armed guards . In one instance even the armed guards were
8
incapable of protecting the property as the violence that was threatened was
so great that the armed guards had to retreat.
[12] Furthermore, it bears remembering that the requirement for urgency is set
out in s 5 of the PIE Act. 2 These requirements are stringent , even more
stringent than catered for in rule 6(12)(a) .3 Stringent as they are, I am
satisfied that the applicant has met them. The urgency was certainly not self-
created. The applicant was entitled to call for the Court’s urgent attention.
The latest events have made the situation intolerable. These are:
a. The provision of s ocial housing has been placed at great peril by the
conduct of the respondents. The applicant is not a commercial entity
motivated by the need or desire to maximise the profit earned by
owning the properties rented to the respondents. The non- payment of
the rents by all the represented and unrepresented respondents has
placed its very existence in peril. As it stands now it has already
suffered great harm – loss of the unpaid rents – and unless the interim
eviction of the respondents is granted it stands to suffer harm that is
final and permanent. Not only will it cease to exist, but the social
housing plans it envisaged will have to be jettisoned. In fact, its
experience is a deterrence to any government or non- governmental
agency that wi shes to tackle the housing crisis in the country by
adopting its model of providing social housing. Thus, while it suffered
great harm and is at peril of suffering per manent final harm, there is
also harm to the general public interest.
b. Many of the individual flats have been hijacked by persons who do not
have any contractual relationship with the applicant, or sold by the
persons who hold the lease with the applicant.
2 HL Hall Properties (Pty) Ltd v Alliance Church and Others ([2025] 2 ALL SA 451 (MM)), See also
Shankie Investments NO 85 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ndima and Others 2015 (2) SA 610 (GJ)
Shankie Investments NO 85 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ndima and Others 2015 (2) SA 610 (GJ)
3 Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (Centre on
Housing Rights and Evictions and Another, Amici Curiae) 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC) para [90]
9
c. Many of the respondents have let the flats they are entitled to occupy
to third persons, despite being precluded from doing so in terms of their
contract with the applicant, and are collecting rents from these persons
while refusing to meet their rental obligation to the applicant.
d. None of the employees, security personnel or contractors engaged by
the applicant is able to attend at any of the properties without fear of
being physically and possibly fatally harmed. These persons have been
threatened, harassed, intimidate d and subjected to violence. Officials
can only attend if accompanied by armed guards.
e. As a result, the applicant is unable to perform an audit of all the people
that occupy the flats. It, therefore, has no knowledge of, control over or
relationship with many of the occupants of its properties.
[13] Ignoring all of the above t he represented respondents claim that the
applicant has failed to show that it suffers imminent harm if the interim
eviction order is not granted. Based on what is said in the preceding
paragraph, I hold that the represented respondents' assertion, namely that
the applicant has not met the threshold of proving imminent harm, is entirely
without foundation.
[14] While claiming that they will be rendered homeless by the grant of the order
the respondents – both represented and unrepresented - put up no detailed
evidence to support their ipse dixit . Each of them simply expects their ipse
dixit to be accepted without more, and to trump all the evidence put up by
the applicant as to why they should be temporarily evicted. They also say
that if the eviction order is not granted, they will continue to live in the
respective flats they occupy rent -free. This status quo will, they admit ,
continue until they are evicted, for even if they wish to pay their rents they
cannot do so. As for the arrears , while they admit they are liable for these,
they expect the applicant to write these off.
10
[15] Finally, the represented respondents suggest that the applicant has an
alternative remedy in terms of s 4 of the PIE Act . That remedy is catered for
in Part C of the application. The applicant still intends to pursue that remedy .
Section 5 of the PIE Act is a special remedy that is separate from the one
catered for in s 4. The latter cannot be an alternative to the former. The claim
to the contrary is legally untenable. It would mean that the remedy allowed
for in terms of s 5 can never avail a party as that party is granted a remedy in
terms of s 4. This simply cannot be a logical interpretation of the two
sections read together. In sum, I am satisfied that the applicant has shown
that the likely hardship it stands to suffer exceeds the likely hardship of the
respondents. To mitigate the hardship of the respondents the order of
eviction granted on 23 September 2025 will be amended to grant them two
months to find alternative accommodation. There is no reason why they
should not be able to do so in this period.
[16] The application for reconsideration is to be dismissed.
[17] There is no order as to costs.
Order
[18] The following order is made:
1 The reconsideration application is dismissed.
2 Pending the finalisation of proceedings in terms of s 4 of the Prevention of
Illegal Eviction for and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1988 (PIE), the
respondents listed in Annexure “A” and Annexure “B” to this order, and all
those occupying the property by, through or under them (collectively ‘the
occupiers’) are evicted from the properties known as Airport Pari Phase 1,
described as Erf 5[ … ] Airport Park Extension 2, Registration Division I.R.,
Gauteng situate at Corner End and Galway Streets, Germiston, 1401 and
Airport Park Phase 2, described as Erven 6[ …] and 6[ ...] Airport Park
Extension 2, Registration Division I.R., Gauteng situate at C […] E[…] and
J[…] Streets, Germiston, 1401 (‘the properties’).
J[…] Streets, Germiston, 1401 (‘the properties’).
3 The occupiers are ordered and directed to vacate the properties on or
before 15 January 2026.
11
4 In the event that the occupiers do not vacate the properties in terms of
paragraph 4 above, the sheriff of the court, and/or his lawfully appointed
deputy, is authorised and directed to evict the occupiers from the
properties.
5 The 261 st and 262 nd Respondents in particular, and the occupiers in
general, are ordered and directed immediately to comply with the order of
Wepener J of 11 October 2022, annexed hereto as “C”.
6 The sheriff of the court, and/or his/her lawfully appointed deputy, is
authorised and directed to approach the South African Police Department
for any assistance s/he may deem necessary and appropriate in the
execution/enforcement of any order of court.
7 The 163rd respondent occupying unit 190, namely Selina Mosude, and the
193rd respondent occupying unit 226, namely Constance Kgopane Tsime,
do not need to vacate the properties and the applicant shall not to evict
them.
8 The form and contents of the draft notice in terms of section 4(2) of PIE
(‘the section 4(2) notice’), annexed hereto as “ D”, is authorised by t his
Court in anticipation of Part “C” of this application.
9 The registrar of the C ourt is authorised and direc ted to insert the hearing
date i n respect of part “ C” of the application in the body of the s 4(2)
notice, and to endorse such s 4(2) notice prior to service thereof.
10 Each party is to pay its own costs.
_____________________
VALLY J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Appearances
Dates of hearing: 10 - 14 November 2025
Date of judgment: 19 November 2025
12
For the Applicant: Adv C van der Merwe
Instructed by: Vermaak Marshall Wellbeloved Inc
For the represented Respondents: Adv MJ Kleyn
Instructed by: Silalemela Attorneys