IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA)
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/ NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES/ NO
(3) REVISED
DATE
In the matter between:
RAMA COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
(Registration Number : CPA/02/0435/A)
LIZZY MAKALE ZWANE
DIETERICH PEOPOANE MONTOEDI
TIDIMA ELLIOT BUTSI
and
RAMA HD INVESTMENTS 1 (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number : 2013/145238/07)
RAMA HD INVESTMENTS 2 (PTY) LTD
(Registration Number : 2013/145241 /07)
CASE NUMBER: 46287/21
DATE: 27 MAY 2026
First Applicant
Second Applicant
Third Applicant
Fourth Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
2
RAMA HORIZON DEVELOPMENTS (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
(Registration Number: 2008/005187/07)
DIRECTOR-GENERAL: DEPARTMENT OF RURAL
DEVELOPMENT AND LAND REFORM,
GAUTENG PROVINCE Fourth Respondent
THE REGISTRAR OF DEEDS, PRETORIA Fifth Respondent
TSHEPO RODNEY MANGANYI N.O. AND OTHERS Intervening Parties
This order is made an Order of Court by the Judge whose name is reflected
herein, duly stamped by the Registrar of the Court and is submitted
electronically to the Parties/their legal representatives by e-mail. This Order is
further uploaded to the electronic file of this matter on Case Lines by the Judge
or his/her secretary. The date of this Order is deemed to be 27 May 2026.
JUDGMENT
DU PLESSIS, AJ
INTRODUCTION
1.
1.1. This matter was enrolled for hearing on the opposed motion roll of
25 May 2026, where it stood as item 15. What was expected to be
the hearing of a long-pending application for the setting aside of
certain transfers of communal land did not proceed as such. Shortly
before the hearing a comprehensive application to intervene was
delivered, and at the hearing on 25 May 2026 each party that
appeared sought, in one form or another, that the matter not proceed
to a determination of the merits. I indicated that I intended to
postpone the matter, and the matter stood down for judgment.
1.2. When the matter resumed on 26 May 2026 the position had
materially changed. I was informed that none of the parties opposes
the application to intervene. In those circumstances it is no longer
necessary to make provision for the filing of affidavits in opposition
3
to the intervention as such, and the intervention may simply be
granted. What remains is to regulate the further conduct of the
matter that follows upon the intervention, and to direct the joinder of
parties who are presently absent. These are my reasons, together
with the directions that are to govern the further conduct of the
matter.
1.3. This judgment decides the disposition of the hearing only. It grants
the intervention, regulates the further exchange of affidavits that
follows upon it, directs the joinder of further parties, and addresses
the costs of the postponement. It does not decide the merits of the
main application, nor the merits of the intervention application or the
counter-application, nor the challenges to the locus standi and
authority of the Applicants. Those are matters for the reconstituted
hearing.
THE APPEARANCES AND THE COURSE OF THE HEARING
2.
2.1. On 25 May 2026 the Applicants appeared and were represented by
Adv L Arthur Maisela. The First and Second Respondents were
represented by Adv B Bergenthuin, instructed by M Botha Attorneys,
who had come on record for those Respondents following the
withdrawal of their former attorneys on 16 March 2026. The Third
Respondent, Rama Horizon Developments (Pty) Ltd, was not
represented and did not appear. The Fourth Respondent, the
Director-General, did not appear on 25 May 2026, although Adv
Maisela informed me from the Bar that he had notified Adv Seneke
SC, who acts for the Fourth Respondent, that the Applicants would
be seeking a postponement by reason of the intervention
application. The Fifth Respondent, the Registrar of Deeds, did not
appear, no relief being sought against the Registrar save in the
event of opposition. The intervening parties were represented by
Adv FC Lamprecht, instructed by Thipe Attorneys.
2.2. When the matter resumed on 26 May 2026, Adv Seneke SC
appeared for the Fourth Respondent, together with his instructing
attorney from the Office of the State Attorney. Adv Seneke SC
attorney from the Office of the State Attorney. Adv Seneke SC
tendered an explanation for the Fourth Respondent’s non -
appearance on 25 May 2026. I accept that explanation and nothing
further need be said about it.
2.3. The positions of the parties in relation to the intervention had by then
crystallised, and crucially they had changed. Adv Maisela informed
me that the Applicants no longer oppose the application to
4
intervene. Adv Bergenthuin indicated that the First and Second
Respondents do not oppose the intervention. Adv Seneke SC
indicated that the Fourth Respondent’s instructions are, similarly,
that it does not oppose the intervention. The intervention is therefore
unopposed.
2.4. All the parties did, however, indicate that the intervention application
– which, as I explain below, serves not only as an application to
intervene but also as an answering affidavit in the main application
and as the founding affidavit of a counter-application – will be
responded to by way of replying and opposing affidavits, as may be
applicable, given the nature of that application. It follows that,
although the matter had stood down for judgment on a contemplated
postponement with a timetable for affidavits in opposition to the
intervention, it is no longer necessary to fix dates for such opposing
affidavits. There being no opposition to the intervention itself, leave
to intervene may simply be granted, and the affidavits that remain to
be exchanged are those that follow upon the joinder of the
intervening parties and upon the counter-application.
BACKGROUND TO THE MATTER
3.
3.1. The First Applicant, the Rama Communal Property Association (“the
CPA”), is a juristic person established under the Communal Property
Associations Act 28 of 1996 (“the CPA Act”), registered in 2002
following the settlement of a land restitution claim lodged by the
Rama community. The CPA is the vehicle through which the
restored land is held for the community of beneficiaries.
3.2. The land in issue comprises the Remaining Extent and Portion 2 of
the Farm Rama No 768 JR. In 2015 and 2016 those properties were
transferred from the CPA to the First and Second Respondents. The
main application, launched in September 2021, seeks declarators
that the underlying sale agreements and the transfers are null and
void, and consequential orders directing the Fifth Respondent to
void, and consequential orders directing the Fifth Respondent to
cancel the deeds of transfer and to revive the prior deeds. The relief
is founded on alleged non-compliance with section 12 of the CPA
Act, which regulates the disposal of communal property.
3.3. The founding affidavit in the main application was deposed to by Mr
Ephraim Poo, who described himself as the Chairperson of the CPA.
Opposition was delivered in 2022 by Mr Hendrik Mpho Nthite, who
described himself as the duly elected Chairperson of the CPA, and
who had occupied that office, on the intervening parties’ version,
5
since 2006. The Second to Fourth Applicants were joined to the
proceedings by order of Cowen J on 18 May 2023, formalised on 5
June 2023, in their asserted capacities as ordinary members of the
CPA.
3.4. From the outset, therefore, the matter has carried within it a contest
as to who lawfully constitutes the Executive Committee of the CPA,
and accordingly who is entitled to speak and act for the CPA. The
deponent to the founding affidavit (Mr Poo) and the deponent to the
opposition (Mr Nthite) each claimed that office. That contest – the
legitimacy and locus standi of the competing factions – has never
been resolved, and it lies at the heart of the difficulties that have now
arisen.
THE DEVELOPMENT
4.
4.1. It is necessary to say something of the development, because its
scale explains both the gravity of the relief sought and the interests
of the absent parties. On the version advanced in the intervention
application, the community resolved at general meetings over the
years to develop the restored land. The structure initially
contemplated a long-term lease in favour of a developer, which was
later altered – said to be at the instance of the City of Tshwane and
to enable the eventual transfer of individual title to beneficiaries –
into a structure in which the First and Second Respondents would
hold the land as special-purpose vehicles, with Rama City
Development Company (Pty) Ltd (“RCDC”) undertaking the
development, and the CPA retaining an equity stake said to be 10
per cent together with a number of housing units for its members.
4.2. Whatever the ultimate merits of that account, it is not in dispute that
a substantial development has in fact taken place on the land. On
the intervening parties’ figures, in the order of 1,580 houses have
been constructed, the great majority within Rama City Extension 10,
and the Gauteng Department of Human Settlements and the City of
Tshwane have been involved in funding subsidies and installing bulk
Tshwane have been involved in funding subsidies and installing bulk
infrastructure. Many of those houses are occupied. The relief sought
in the main application, if granted, would unwind the proprietary
foundation of that development and would, at the least, materially
affect the position of those occupants and of the organs of state that
funded the project.
6
THE INTERVENTION APPLICATION
5.
5.1. The intervention application was delivered on 22 May 2026, two
court days before the hearing. It is brought by eighteen intervening
parties – nine natural persons, each cited both in a representative
capacity, nomine officio, and in a personal capacity – and is
supported by a founding affidavit deposed to by Mr Tshepo Rodney
Manganyi, running to some 123 pages, with numerous annexures.
The affidavit serves a threefold purpose: it founds the application to
intervene; it stands as the answering affidavit in opposition to the
main application; and it founds a counter-application for declaratory
relief.
5.2. The intervening parties purport to be the duly elected Executive
Committee of the CPA, elected at an annual general meeting held
on 13 December 2025, of which Mr Manganyi deposes to be the
Chairperson. They claim standing to intervene on two bases: a s
ordinary members of the CPA with an interest in the litigation, and
nomine officio as the Executive Committee empowered by the
CPA’s constitution to institute and defend proceedings on the CPA’s
behalf. It is important to record what they do not rely upon. They do
not advance their standing on the strength of the Third Applicant,
nor of any person in the main application claiming to be the leader
or president of the Applicants; on the contrary, they expressly
distance themselves from the faction represented by the Second to
Fourth Applicants and the deponent to the founding affidavit, whom
they describe as the “concerned group ” and whose election they
dispute. Their claimed legitimacy rests upon the election of 13
December 2025 and upon their asserted succession to the
executive formerly led by the late Mr Nthite. Whether that claimed
status is good is precisely one of the matters in dispute, and it is not
for determination today.
5.3. The relief sought in the intervention application is not confined to
leave to intervene. It extends to the dismissal of the main
leave to intervene. It extends to the dismissal of the main
application, a costs order against the Second to Fourth Applicants,
and a final declarator that the representative intervening parties are
the Executive Committee of the CPA with effect from 13 December
2025. The intervening parties thus seek, in part, final relief. That final
relief cannot be granted now. It can only be considered, if at all, at
the final hearing of the matter, once all affected parties have had the
opportunity to deal with it on properly constituted papers.
7
THE NEW FACTS RAISED BY THE INTERVENTION, AND THE
ASSASSINATIONS
6.
6.1. The intervention application introduces material that does not
appear in the papers as they previously stood, and which cannot
responsibly be ignored. Two matters in particular stand out.
6.2. First, the intervening parties allege that the leadership of the CPA
has been the target of violence. Mr Nthite, the former Chairperson
and the deponent to the opposition in the main application, is said
to have been assassinated on 10 March 2025, days after an interim
interdict was granted by this Division on 4 March 2025 against the
faction represented by the Applicants. The deputy chairperson, Ms
Sinah Mothapo, is said to have been assassinated on 2 March 2026,
a day after consulting attorneys concerning this very litigation.
These are grave allegations. If they are true, they go some way to
explaining why the opposition foreshadowed in 2022 was not
prosecuted to finality, and why the present intervention comes when
it does. They also lend a particular seriousness to the proceedings
and to the need to bring the underlying disputes to a proper and final
resolution.
6.3. Second, the intervention application advances a detailed account of
the authorisation and structuring of t he development, of the CPA’s
alleged equity participation, of the interests of the occupant-
beneficiaries and the organs of state, and of an interim interdict of 4
March 2025 said to bear upon the standing and conduct of the
Applicants. These are matters of substance. They are placed before
the Court for the first time in a comprehensive set of papers, and
they have not been answered. The Applicants, the First and Second
Respondents, and any party to be joined are entitled to deal with
them.
THE POSITION OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIP
WITH THE FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS
7.
7.1. The position of the Third Respondent calls for comment, because it
is presently obscure and because it bears upon how the matter is to
is presently obscure and because it bears upon how the matter is to
proceed. The Third Respondent, Rama Horizon Developments (Pty)
Ltd, did not appear and is, on the intervening parties’ own
description, currently unrepresented. The opposition delivered in
2022 was deposed to by Mr Nthite. On the intervening parties’
analysis, although Mr Nthite’s filing notice purported to be on behalf
8
of the First, Second and Third Respondent companies, the
substance of his affidavit made plain that he opposed the application
in his capacity as the then Chairperson of the CPA, and not on
behalf of the companies as such. Mr Nthite has since died.
7.2. The consequence is that it is presently unclear whether the company
respondents were ever properly before the Court in opposition, by
whom they are now represented, and on whose authority. The First
and Second Respondents came to be separately represented only
in March 2026, through M Botha Attorneys, and now seek time to
file answering affidavits. The Third Respondent is not represented
at all. The relationships between the three companies, and between
the companies and the CPA, are themselves a matter of contention:
the intervening parties assert that the CPA holds equity in the
development and that the deponent to their founding affidavit has
been appointed to the boards of the First, Second and Third
Respondents to represent the CPA’s interests. Whether that is so,
and what it means for the genuineness and the alignment of the
opposition, are questions that cannot be resolved on the present
papers. It is sufficient for present purposes to record that the
representation and authority of the company respondents is
unsettled, and that this is a further reason why the matter is not in a
fit state to be heard on its merits.
THE INTERVENTION IS GRANTED; WHAT FOLLOWS
8.
8.1. An application to intervene is, by its nature, interlocutory to the main
proceedings. It falls to be determined before the main application
can be heard, because its outcome determines who the parties to
the main application are. The intervention being unopposed, leave
to intervene is granted and the intervening parties are joined as
respondents in the main application.
8.2. The single set of papers delivered by the intervening parties serves
three distinct functions. It is the founding affidavit in the application
three distinct functions. It is the founding affidavit in the application
to intervene; it stands as the answering affidavit in opposition to the
main application; and it is the founding affidavit of a counter-
application for declaratory relief. The grant of leave to intervene
therefore brings into the main application both an answer to the
Applicants’ case and a fresh claim against them. The pleadings are,
in consequence, incomplete, and an orderly exchange must now
follow before the matter can be heard.
8.3. Two things follow. First, the remaining respondents must consider
9
their position in relation to the intervening parties and the case now
advanced. Second, the Applicants must be afforded the opportunity
to reply to the answering affidavit, and to deliver an opposing
affidavit, should they wish to do so, to the founding affidavit of the
counter-application. The relief sought – both in the main application
and in the counter-application, the latter including the dismissal of
the main application and a final declarator as to the lawful Executive
Committee of the First Applicant – will be dealt with once all the
pleadings have been exchanged and at the final hearing of the
matter. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to determine any of
that relief now.
THE NEED FOR JOINDER
9.
9.1. Independently of the intervention, the main application cannot
competently proceed to a final determination in the absence of
parties with a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought. The
non-joinder of such parties is a matter which the Court must raise of
its own accord, and which the agreement or default of the parties
before the Court cannot cure: Amalgamated Engineering Union v
Minister of Labour 1949 (3) SA 637 (A); Judicial Service
Commission v Cape Bar Council 2013 (1) SA 170 (SCA) at para 12.
9.2. The relief sought, if granted, would unwind the proprietary basis of
a development on which substantial numbers of people reside and
in which organs of state have invested. At the least, the Gauteng
Department of Human Settlements and the City of Tshwane
Metropolitan Municipality have a direct and substantial interest and
must be joined. So too do the residents of the Rama City
development who are not otherwise represented in these
proceedings, including those not covered by the intervention
application. I am alive to the fact that the occupants may number in
excess of 2,000, and that their joinder will be a substantial
undertaking. That is, however, a consequence of the nature and
undertaking. That is, however, a consequence of the nature and
scale of the relief that the Applicants seek, and it is a difficulty that
the Applicants must address if they wish to pursue that relief. The
burden of effecting the joinder falls upon the Applicants as the
parties seeking the order.
THE LOCUS STANDI AND RULE 7 CHALLENGES
10.
10
10.1. The First and Second Respondents, through Adv Bergenthuin,
asked that I determine now the locus standi of the Applicants and
the challenge to the authority of the Applicants’ attorneys delivered
in terms of Rule 7. I decline to do so at this stage. The matter is
being postponed to enable the affidavits that follow upon the
intervention and the counter-application to be exchanged, and the
necessary parties to be joined. The questions of the Applicants’
locus standi and of their attorneys’ authority are bound up with the
very contest over the lawful Executive Committee of the CPA that
the intervention raises, and they are better determined on a
complete record and in their proper place. It will be for the Applicants
to address those challenges to the extent that they may deem
necessary, and to do so in the ordinary course as the matter
proceeds. Nothing in this judgment is to be taken as expressing any
view on the merits of those challenges.
THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES AND THE COSTS OF THE
POSTPONEMENT
11.
11.1. A postponement ordinarily carries with it the question of who should
bear its costs. The general rule is that the party responsible for a
postponement should pay the costs wasted by it. The position here
is not so simple, and I have concluded that no order visiting the costs
of the postponement upon any single party would be just.
11.2. Criticism may fairly be directed at more than one quarter. The
intervening parties delivered a substantial application only two court
days before a hearing that had been set down since March 2026, in
circumstances where the underlying disputes had been known to
them for a considerable time. That lateness is, however, explained
to a degree by the disruption to the CPA’s leadership, including the
assassinations to which I have referred, and by the time taken by a
newly elected committee to establish itself. The First and Second
Respondents, for their part, came on record only in March 2026 and
Respondents, for their part, came on record only in March 2026 and
now seek further time to answer; while a litigant is entitled to proper
representation and time to answer, the company respondents’
engagement with this long-pending matter has been belated and,
until very recently, unclear. The Third Respondent has not engaged
at all. The Applicants, although ready to proceed and entitled to have
their set-down respected, brought and have maintained an
application that suffers from a non-joinder that was apparent and
that would in any event have prevented a final hearing.
11
11.3. In short, the matter has reached this impasse through a combination
of factors and a measure of responsibility on several sides, rather
than through the fault of one party alone. The intervention, which is
the immediate occasion of the postponement, raises matters of
genuine substance that had to be ventilated; it would not be just to
mulct the intervening parties in the wasted costs of a postponement
that the state of the main application, and in particular the non-
joi
nder, rendered all but inevitable. Equally, it would not be just to
burden the Applicants alone, who were ready to proceed. In these
circumstances the fair order is that the costs occasioned by the
postponement be reserved for determination by the Court that finally
hears the matter, which will then be in a position to assess the
conduct of each party in the round and against the ultimate outcome.
I make no adverse costs order against any party at this stage, and
the reservation of costs is without prejudice to the right of any party
to seek an appropriate costs order at the final hearing.
ALLOCATION TO A SPECIAL MOTION COURT
12.
Given the volume of the papers, the number of parties, the complexity of the
factual and legal issues, and the prospect that the matter may require the
hearing of a substantial interlocutory application followed by a lengthy main
application, this matter is not suited to disposal in the ordinary opposed motion
court. The parties are directed to give consideration to approaching the Deputy
Judge President, in accordance with the Practice Directives of this Division, for
the allocation of the matter to a special motion court or for case management,
so that an appropriate hearing date and adequate time may be secured. The
interests of the many persons affected by this litigation, and the need to bring
these long-running disputes to finality, make such an approach desirable.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
13.
13.1. For the reasons set out above, the intervention is unopposed and is
13.
13.1. For the reasons set out above, the intervention is unopposed and is
granted, and the intervening parties are joined as respondents in the
main application. The matter is to be postponed sine die to enable
the exchange of the affidavits that follow upon the intervention and
the counter-application, and to enable the joinder of the necessary
parties. Thereafter the matter is to proceed in the normal course of
the Rules of this Court.
13.2. In the result, I make the following order:
12
13.2.1. The hearing of the main application is postponed sine die.
13.2.2. The application to intervene being unopposed, leave is
granted to the intervening parties to intervene, and the
intervening parties are joined as respondents in the main
application.
13.2.3. It is recorded that the affidavit delivered by the
intervening parties serves as the founding affidavit in the
application to intervene, as the answering affidavit in the
main application, and as the founding affidavit of the
counter-application.
13.2.4. The remaining respondents are to consider their position
in relation to the intervening parties and the counter-
application, and may deliver such affidavits as they may
be advised, in accordance with the Rules of this Court.
13.2.5. The Applicants may deliver their replying affidavit to the
answering affidavit, and their answering affidavit, should
they wish to do so, to the founding affidavit of the counter-
application, in accordance with the Rules of this Court.
13.2.6. The relief sought in the main application and in the
counter-application, including the dismissal of the main
application and a final declarator as to the lawful
Executive Committee of the First Applicant, will be dealt
with at the final hearing of the matter, once all the
pleadings have been exchanged.
13.2.7. The Applicants are directed, within 20 (twenty) days of
the date of this order, to take all steps necessary to effect
the joinder to the main application of: the Gauteng
Department of Human Settlements; the City of Tshwane
Metropolitan Municipality; and the residents and
occupants of the Rama City development who are not
otherwise before the Court, including those not covered
by the intervention application. Thereafter the ordinary
Rules of this Court shall apply to the joinder and the
further conduct of the matter.
13.2.8. The questions of the locus standi of the Applicants and of
the challenge to the authority of the Applicants’ attorneys
the challenge to the authority of the Applicants’ attorneys
in terms of Rule 7 are not determined, and stand over to
be dealt with as the matter proceeds; the Applicants are
to address those challenges to the extent that they may
deem necessary.
13
13.2.9. The parties are directed to give consideration to
approaching the Deputy Judge President for the
allocation of the matter to a special motion court or for
judicial case management, having regard to the volume
of the papers and the number of parties affected.
13.2.10. The costs occasioned by the postponement are reserved
for determination by the Court that finally hears the
matter.
DU PLESSIS AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
Date of hearing: 25 and 26 May 2026
Date of judgment: 27 May 2026
For the Applicants: Adv L Arthur Maisela, instructed by the Applicants'
attorneys of record.
For the First and Second Respondents: Adv B Bergenthuin, instructed by M
Botha Attorneys.
For the Third Respondent: No appearance.
For the Fourth Respondent: Adv T Seneke SC, instructed by the Office of the
State Attorney, Pretoria (appeared on 26 May 2026).
For the Fifth Respondent: No appearance .
For the Intervening Parties: Adv FC Lamprecht, instructed by Thipe Attorneys .