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 LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 2026/016783
In the matter between:
FUTURE INDEFINITE INVESTMENTS
180 (PTY) LTD First Applicant
THE OLIFANTSFONTEIN BUSINESS
FORUM NPC Second Applicant
FLOTEK PIPES AND IRRIGATION (PTY) LTD Third Applicant
GLASS DECORATIONS CC Fourth Applicant
NORCROS (S A) (PTY) LTD Fifth Applicant
COMPASS HOUSE (PTY) LTD Sixth Applicant
And
THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF EKURHULENI
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
THE CITY OF EKURHULENI
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
THE CITY MANAGER CITY OF
TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED
------------------- -------------------
DATE: SIGNATURE
2
THE CITY OF TSHWANE
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Fourth Respondent
JR 209 INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD Fifth Respondent
ERF 8[…] ERASMUSKLOOF
EXTENSION 3 (PTY) LTD Sixth Respondent
ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LTD Seventh Respondent
______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________
MIA, J
[1] The applicants seek urgent interim interdictory relief pending
compliance with statutory authorizations governing land use, environmental
approval and relocation of occupiers. The application is opposed.
[2] The applicants own commercial and industrial properties in Clayville
Township, situated adjacent to Portion 83 of the Farm Olifantsfontein 402,
Registration Division JR, Gauteng Province (the Relocation Site) . The first to
fourth respondents the Municipalities responsible for enforcement of certain
legislation in the area, the fifth and sixth respondents are developers and own
the property designated as the Relocation Site( the Developers) . Eskom
Holdings SOC Ltd (Eskom) is the eighth respondent and cited because it
requires the relocation to work in the area where the resident are currently
located. The applicant seeks an order interdicting the respondents from
permitting or facilitating the relocation of an existing informal settlement
known as the L&J Settlement to the Relocation Site pending lawful
compliance with applicable legislation.
BACKGROUND FACTS
[3] The L&J Settlement is an informal residential settlement established on
Portion 3 of the Farm Sterkfontein 401, Division Registration Division JR,
3
Gauteng Province, 51 3919 hectares in extent, (the Sterkfontein Property). It
is partially situated in Ekurhuleni Municipality and partially in Ts hwane
Municipality. Approximately 3000 households reside in the L&J Settlement.
[4] It is common cause that both the Sterkfontein Property and the
Relocation Site are owned by the Developers. Eskom intends upgrading
infrastructure affecting at least 68 residents within the L&J Settlement. It
requires the relocation of the households located on the Sterkfontein property.
The Municipality does not have alternative land available to relocate the
residents of the L & J settlement. It held discussions with the Developers, who
made the Relocation Site available for relocation purposes.
[5] It is not disputed that the Developers commenced works at the
Relocation Site. The applicants allege that on 16 January 2026 they became
aware of the relocation plans and that preparatory earthworks were
undertaken without compliance with planning, environmental and building
legislation. The applicant seeks to prevent the occupation of the properties
adjoining it s property by thousands of residents without the necessary
planning, building and environmental compliance overnight. The applicant
purchased its property adjacent to the Relocation Site during 2011 for an
amount of R 54 500 000 million . It has improved the property which
accommodates warehouses occupied by commercial and industrial tenants.
The rental income is thus the source of a substantial monthly income for the
applicants. It envisage that the settlement with which has not been approved
by the Municipality will affects is commercial interest negatively.
THE MUNICIPALITY’S POSITION
[6] The Municipality contends that it has no control over the Relocation
Site as it is owned by the Developers. They also maintain that there is no
written relocation agreement. It also states that it has not relocated any
households or persons. It agrees that the Developers must comply with the
households or persons. It agrees that the Developers must comply with the
law before any relocation occurs. The Municipality further states that it cannot
relocate people without statutory compliance as it would amount to an
unlawful relocation.
4
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
[7] The issues to be considered are:
a) Whether the matter is urgent.
b) Whether the applicants have established the requirements for
an interim interdict :- namely a prima facie right ; a reasonable
apprehension of irreparable harm; that the balance of
convenience favours the granting of relief ; and the absence of
an alternative remedy.
c) Whether the conduct complained of is prima facie unlawful.
d) Whether the Municipalities can be interdicted on the present
evidence.
URGENCY
[8] Once the applicants demonstrate a prim a facie right and harm, t he
urgency depends upon whether substantial redress can be obtained in due
course and whether the harm apprehended is imminent. The applicants allege
that work has commenced on the Relocation Site consistent with preparation
for occupation. They fear that relocation could occur imminently . That the
work has commenced is undisputed. The applicant fears that upon
establishment of the informal settlement on the Relocation Site, it will be
difficult to restore the status quo, particularly where vulnerable occupiers are
involved. The harm would be effectively irreversible in relation to their
interests and income. I am satisfied that the matter is urgent.
PRIMA FACIE RIGHT
[9] The applicants rely on their rights as neighbouring property owners and
on statutory compliance requirements arising from various legislation
including Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act 16 of 2013
(SPLUMA), National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA),
National Building Regulations , and the Municipality’s Spatial Development
Framework (MSDF). They contend that no lawful rezoning, environmental
authorisation and building approvals have been secured nor was there a
public participation process conducted. The Relocation Site is still zoned as
5
agricultural and the respondents have not provided evidence of approved land
use change, environmental authorisation or building plan approval. The
Municipality’s version reiterates that relocation may not occur without
compliance with the law . The applicants have established a prima facie right
to be assured that there was and there will be statutory compliance prior to
land use change and the envisaged establishment of a settlement . There is
no dispute that there was no participation. The Municipality maintains that
there should be compliance however the Developers are required to apply for
the necessary approvals.
REASONABLE APPREHENSION OF IRREPARABLE HARM
[10] The relocation of thousands of residents to the Relocation Site without
compliance with n ational laws and Bylaws carries permanent consequences .
Once the residents occupy the R elocation Site there will be challenges to the
applicants’ business and commercial interest if the informal settlement is not
properly serviced. The relocation will have practical operational and
commercial impact on the adjacent commercial businesses where the
relocation is not properly planned and managed and is not compliant with the
applicable laws. An unplanned relocation without the proper services in place
to service the Relocation Site will result in a deterioration of the area and
impact the applicants’ businesses where it relies on rental income from
tenants. In V & A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and Another v Helicopter &
Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and others
1 the Court recognised that a threat of
harm to an applicant’s right was deserving of protection. The Court stated: “In
the present case, therefore, the threatened invasion of the first appellant's
rights under the lease constituted proof of reasonably apprehended injury. It
was not necessary for the appellants' success to show that the helicopter was
unairworthy or what the chances were of a fatal or destructive crash.
2
unairworthy or what the chances were of a fatal or destructive crash.
2
[11] In the present case, therefore, the threatened invasion of the first
appellant's rights under the lease constitutes proof of reasonably
apprehended injury. The apprehension of harm is objectively reasonable.
1 2006 (1) SA 252 (SCA)
2 Ibid para [22]
6
BALANCE OF CONVENIENCE
[12] The respondents rely on humanitarian considerations and infrastructure
needs. Those considerations are weighty. However, the rule of law requires
that even socially beneficial objectives be pursued within statutory bounds.
The interdict sought is not final. It merely suspends relocation pending lawful
compliance. The balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo
until legality is established.
ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
[13] There is no adequate alternative remedy . A claim for damages would not
reverse land use change nor undo the establishment of a settlement. It cannot
be expected that the applicant wait for the envisaged harm to occur. The
claim for envisaged loss caused by relocation of the residents in contravention
of the law will be complex and difficulty to prove. It cannot be expected of the
applicant to remain docile in the face of a threat of anticipated financial loss.
This accords with the view in V & A Waterfront Properties (Pty) Ltd and
Another v Helicopter & Marine Services (Pty) Ltd and others
3
MUNICIPAL LIABILITY
[14] Whilst the Municipality contends that it has not itself relocated any
person and lacks control over the Relocation Site, it does have control over
the application the laws and its own Bylaws. The Municipality is also
delegated to enforce the applicable environmental laws. During the
Municipality’s discussions with the Developers, it expressed willingness to
assist, and that works commenced in the context of that arrangement. The
Municipality as a public authority cannot avoid scrutiny by characterising its
involvement as informal where its facilitation is integral to the impugned
conduct.
[15] The relief sought is preventative, not punitive. It is appropriate that all
parties involved in the relocation arrangement be bound by an order
3 Ibid at para [23]
7
preserving legality. It is not appropriate to allow unlawful developments to
proceed to a stage where a fait accompli effectively determines the outcome.
Once the land use change has been finalised and there is appropriate
compliance with the relevant laws then a properly planned relocation may
follow. .
CONCLUSION
[16] The applicants have established the requi rements for interim interdictory
relief. The relief will be framed to preserve the status quo pending compliance
with applicable statutory requirements.
[17] Consequently I order as follows:
ORDER
1. The application is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12).
2. Pending the lawful, final and operative approval of all statutory
authorisations and consents required in respect of the Relocation Site:
2.1 The first to f ourth respondents are interdicted from
facilitating, authorising or permitting the relocation of any
occupiers from the L&J Settlement to the Relocation Site;
2.2 The f ifth and sixth respondents are interdicted from
establishing or permitting the establishment of any informal
residential settlement at the Relocation Site;
2.3 All r espondents are interdicted from allowing access to,
invasion of, or habitation of the Relocation Site for purposes of
such relocation.
3. The above order shall operate as an interim interdict pending the
institution and determination of review or declaratory proceedings
within 30 days.
4. The second, fifth and sixth respondents shall pay the costs of this
application jointly and severally, the one paying the others to be
absolved.
8
_________________________________________________
S C MIA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
9
Appearances:
On behalf of the applicant : Werner Lüderitz SC
082 492 4459
wluderitz@advchambers.co.za
Jaco van Heerden
082 855 6834
jvh@advchambers.co.za
Instructed by : Adriaan Venter Attorneys &
Associates
info@avatt.co.za
On behalf of the respondent : Emmanuel Nathi Sithole
076 1629 605
esithole@law.co.za
Instructed by : Jose & Associates
info@jose-associates.co.za
For the Developers: : Stefan Viljoen
Stefanviljoenlaw1@gmail.com
079 011 4515
Instructed by : AB Lowe Associates
law@ablowe.coza
Date of hearing : 10 February 2026
Date of judgment : 4 March 2026