IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE STATE DIVISION, BLOEMFONTEIN
In the matter between:
OPPERMANSGRONDECOMMUNAL
PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
and
RUBEN CLASSEN
BRADLEY NIEWENHUIZEN
GEORGE ADAMS
JAMES ARENDS
ETTIENE CLASSEN
MURIEL DE KOKER
MARTHA PLAATJIES
CHAM EEL LEMMET JIES
HANSIE SNYERS
KEITH MEYER
STEWART ARENDS
LENARD ONTONG
Not reportable
Case no: 2814/2025
APPLICANT
FIRST RESPONDENT
SECOND RESPONDENT
THIRD RESPONDENT
FOURTH RESPONDENT
FIFTH RESPONDENT
SIXTH RESPONDENT
SEVENTH RESPONDENT
EIGHTH RESPONDENT
NINTH RESPONDENT
TENTH RESPONDENT
ELEVENTH RESPONDENT
TWELFTH RESPONDENT
LEGRANIE JOSEPH
LAWRENCE JULIES
RUDOLPH SMITH
WAYNE CARELSE
WERNER LEMMET JIES
ISAK MOTSABI
PIETER OLIVIER
VICTOR VAN HEERDEN
2
THIRTEENTH RESPONDENT
FOURTEENTH RESPONDENT
FIFTEENTH RESPONDENT
SIXTEENTH RESPONDENT
SEVENTEENTH RESPONDENT
EIGHTEENTH RESPONDENT
NINETEENTH RESPONDENT
TWENTIETH RESPONDENT
Neutral citation: Oppermansgronde Communal Property Association v Ruben
Classen & Others (2814/2025) [2026) ZAFSHC 80 (2 March 2026)
Coram: CHESIWE J
Heard: 11 September 2025
Delivered: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties' representatives by email and released to SAFLII. The date and time for
hand-down is deemed to be 13h00 on 2 March 2026.
Summary: Rule nisi- confirmation of interim order- interdict- protest action
- threats of violence - damage to property - right to peaceful assembly - Constitution
of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 - locus standi.
3
ORDER
1 The rule nisi issued on 6 June 2025 is confirmed.
2 The costs to be paid by the respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved.
JUDGMENT
Chesiwe J
Introduction
[1] This is an opposed application on the return date of an interim order that was
granted on 6 June 2025. The application was initially an urgent on 6 June 2025, in
which the applicant sought to interdict the respondents from committing acts of
disruption, threats of violence, destroying of the applicant's property and intimidation.
The matter was again before court on the opposed roll of 11 September 2025. The
relief sought by the applicant in the opposed application is listed in paragraphs 1, 2, 3,
and 4 of the notice of motion and will not be repeated herein.
Background
[2] The applicant is the owner of approximately 38 000 hectares of farmland in
Oppermansgronde, in the Free State Province. The applicant concluded a written
lease agreements with some of its members for farming activities. Some of the
respondents who are not members of the applicant started to conduct farming
activities on the applicant's land unlawfully. On 20 May 2025, correspondence was
sent through to the attorneys of the applicant about the unlawful farming activities
including a request for a meeting to resolve the dispute between the applicant and the
respondents.
[3] On 29 May 2025, the respondents protested outside the business premises of
the applicant at Kamp 89, Stofdam, OppermansgrondE 9987, known as "Die Sand".
During the protesting, the respondents damaged property, damaged the locks and
fences, broke down and took down the notification board and assaulted some of the
4
applicant's employees, specifically Mr Samuel Lemmetjies (Mr Lemmetjies). The first
and fifth respondents jumped over the security fence to continue with their threats
against Mr Lemmetjies and Ms Saliza de Koker. The police were called to intervene in
order to stop the respondents from destroying the property further, and the threats
against the employees of the applicant. The applicant then launched an urgent
application which was heard on 6 June 2025, with a return date of 17 July 2025.
[4] On 17 July 2025, the matter was further postponed to 11 September 2025 and
the rule nisi was extended to the same date. The court further ordered that the second
to forth respondents and sixth to twentieth respondents (the respondents) file their
answering affidavit on or before 21 August 2025. The rule nisi was confirmed against
the first and fifth respondents. On 11 September 2025, the matter proceeded on the
opposed roll. The respondents filed their answering affidavits and all parties filed their
written heads of argument as per the court's directives.
Issue
[5] The issue for determination is whether the rule nisi granted on 6 June 2025
should be discharged or confirmed.
Submissions
[6] Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted in oral argument that it is common
cause that there is infighting in the association due to members who are not in good
standing being terminated. Further that, the respondents want to portray their
protesting as a constitutional right, whereas the respondents threatened to kill the
committee members. Moreover, counsel submitted that the respondents are not
prohibited from lawful protesting however, are prohibited from damaging property,
threatening and intimidating members of the association.
[7] Counsel on behalf of the respondents submitted that the applicant is abusing
the courts to frustrate the respondents from exercising their constitutional right to
protest. Further that, the threats to kill the committee members is a constitutional right
protest. Further that, the threats to kill the committee members is a constitutional right
and made reference to the matter of AfriForum v Economic Freedom Fighters and
5
Others (AfriForum).1 Moreover , that there is no evidence of these threats except for
the photos that were attached to the application. Additionally , counsel submitted that
only two of the respondents were identified and that the tenth, fifteenth and sixteenth
respondents were not present, but have been cited. Additionally , counsel challenged
the authority of the deponent to act as a litigant in this matter, including the unsigned
affidavits that were filed on the respondents .
[8] I pause to mention that, the issue of the unsigned confirmatory affidavit was
resolved as the signed copy was filed in the court file. Thus, that issue does not need
to be dealt with any further. However, the respondents challenged the authority of the
deponent , Mr Clint Louis Barnes (Mr Barnes) in that he did not have the authority to
litigate on behalf of the applicant to which counsel for the applicant submitted that the
issue of lack of locus standi isn't even a none starter. In the notice of motion, the
applicant included the founding affidavit of Mr Barnes, which stated as follows:
'I am the applicant's chairperson and it has duly authorised me to launch these proceedings
on its behalf.·
[9] The respondents filed a rule 7(1) notice disputing the authority of the deponent ,
to which the applicant responded and filed its power of attorney that
Kramer Wiehmann Inc acts on its behalf including the special resolution, which states:
'Die OGEV Kommittee hee hierme die reg an hul prokeruirs by Kramer Wiehmann en die
voorsitter, Mnr. CL Barnes om enige aksie te neem hetsy regs suviel. .. '.
[1 O] Based on the above, I am inclined to agree with counsel on behalf of the
applicant that the dispute of lack of locus standi is a none starter. The applicant has
submitted evidence before this Court that the entity had resolved to institute
proceedings and that these are instituted at its instance2 and that it is being
represented by the deponent and the attorneys. The applicant has provided sufficient
represented by the deponent and the attorneys. The applicant has provided sufficient
evidence that the deponent had the authority.
1 AfriForum v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others [2024] ZASCA 82; [2024] 3 All SA 319 (SCA);
2024 (10) BCLR 1275 (SCA); 2024 (6) SA 1 (SCA).
2 Mall (Cape) (Pty) Ltd v Merino Ko-operasie BPK 1957 (2) SA 347 (C) at 351 H.
6
[11] The respondents on their own version in the answering affidavit stated that,
Mr Barnes is the chairman of the applicant as he was the successor of his father and
held this position for a long time. Thus, the respondents' plea of lack of locus standi
cannot stand and ought to be dismissed. The inference drawn is that the respondents
recognise the deponent as the chairperson of the association and has the authority to
litigate. Urgency in terms of rule 6(12) was already granted on 6 June 2025 and will
not be dealt with, save to mention that in applications of this nature, the judge may
dispense with the forms and service as provided.
rule nisi - legal principles
[12] The rule nisi that was granted as an interim order, called upon the respondents
to show cause why the provisional order ought not be confirmed. The said order was
served on the respondents by the sheriff with a return date of 17 July 2025. On the
said date, the rule nisi was extended to 11 September 2025 to grant the respondents
an opportunity to file their answering affidavit on or before 7 August 2025 and the
applicant to file its reply on or before 21 August 2025. A rule nisi is premised on the
acceptance that the interests of justice require the balancing of rights of the applicant/s
and the respondent/s and to ensure that the protection of the applicant/s does not
prejudice the respondent/s' interest as well.
[13] In National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mohammed N O and Others, 3 the
court held as follows:
'(28] Our common law has recognised both the great importance of the audi rule as well as
the need for flexibility, in circumstances where a rigid application of the rule would defeat the
very rights sought to be enforced or protected. In such circumstances, the court issues a
rule nisi calling on the interested parties to appear in court on a certain fixed date to advance
reasons why the rule should not be made final, and at the same time orders that the
reasons why the rule should not be made final, and at the same time orders that the
rule nisi should act immediately as a temporary order, pending the return day. This practice
has been recognised by the South African courts for over a century.'
3 National Director of Public Prosec utions v Moham med N O and Others [2003) ZACC 4; 2003 ( 1) SACR
561 ; 2003 (5) BCLR 476; 2003 (4) SA 1 (CC).
7
[14] The respondents had an opportunity through their answering affidavit and
denied the allegations raised against them of threats to kill and intimidation of the
applicant's members in good standing. At paragraph 24 of the answering affidavit, the
following is noted:
' ... It was never our intention nor plan to enter the premises. We had all agreed to remain
outside for a short duration or until the deponent confirms a meeting with us.'
[15] Ad paragraph 10.4, the response thereof is as follows:
'25.2 it is admitted that the first and fifth respondents jumped over the locked gate, but only
them and nobody else ....
25.3 ... They were there for a very brief time and jumped back again.'
However, the applicant in its founding affidavit, paints a different picture. The applicant
states that the first respondent threatened Mr Lemmetjies by picking up a brick and
pretended to throw it in direction and uttered that Mr Lemmetjies will be sorted out.
Moreover, attached to the applicant's application are annexures, one of which is a
photo depicting a placard with an inscription: 'Kill the committee . Kill the puppet system
freedom is coming'. The other, is a photo of the damage to the gate. Further to that,
the respondents' action, on the day was intervened by a police officer,
Lure Groenewald, who attempted to mediate the dispute the between the parties.It is
clear that, had the police not intervened in this instance, the damage to property and
the protesting could have gotten out of hand. It has duly been seen on the news that
often at times when people protest, property is damaged.
[16] The respondents' counsel in oral argument as already stated above, submitted
that the inscription of the placard: 'Kill the committee ' is freedom of expression and is
similar to the matter of AfriForum . However, this matter is distinguishable from the
current matter as it falls under hate speech and a threat to kill is thus not comparable .
current matter as it falls under hate speech and a threat to kill is thus not comparable .
The court takes cognisance of s 17 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa,
1996, which in regard to assembly, demonstration, picket and petition provides as
follows:
'Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and
to present petitions.'
8
[17] Nowhere does the above-mentioned section of the Constitution reference
threats or damaging of property. Section 16 of the constitution which deals with
freedom of expression does not extend to incitement of imminent violence.
Mr Lemmetjies cannot be faulted for fearing a brick being thrown at him by the first
respondent albeit in pretence and with the chanting, signing and walling threatening
messages. This was sufficient for the applicant to approach the court on an urgent
basis.
[18) It is indeed common cause between the parties that there has been infighting
for years. The dispute could have been resolved through other means and not through
threats and violence. The respondents should not have made threats in order for the
applicant to agree to a meeting.
Conclusion
(19) The respondents were called upon to show good cause as to why the order
should not be made final. In their opposing affidavit, the respondents simply denied
these allegations and mentioned that the alleged threats and intimidation could have
been resolved through a criminal case. The respondents in this case went beyond the
right to a peaceful and unarmed protest, the right that is protected under s 17 of the
Constitution. The respondents even went further with the damaged property and acts
of threats and violence. In my view, the respondents have failed to show good cause
as to why the order should not be confirmed.
Costs
(20] The general rule is that costs follow the successful party. The respondents'
conduct caused the applicant to approach the court. And in the absence of a meeting,
a clout of threats and intimidation, the applicant would not have approached the court
on an urgent basis. Thus, this warrants that the respondents pay the costs jointly and
severally.
Order
(21] Accordingly, the following order is made:
1 The rule nisi issued on 6 June 2025 is confirmed.
9
2 The costs to be paid by the respondents, jointly and severally, the one paying
the other to be absolved.
S CHESIWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
For the appellant:
Instructed by:
For the respondents:
Instructed by:
S Grobler SC
Kramer Weihmann Incorporated ,
Bloemfontein
CM D Rawson
UFS Law Clinic,
Bloemfontein .
10