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, PRETORIA
Case Number: 2025-077106
In the matter between:
In the matter between:
REDEFINE RETAIL (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN
MUNICIPALITY Second Respondent
CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Third Respondent
EKURHULENI WATER CARE COMPANY NPC Fourth Respondent
MINISTER OF WATER AFFAIRS AND SANITATION Fifth Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
WATER AND SANITATION Sixth Respondent
(1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED: YES
8 June 2026 _________________________
DATE SIGNATURE
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT,
GAUTENG Seventh Respondent
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT FOR AGRICULTURE AND
RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GAUTENG Eighth Respondent
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE
ENVIRONMENT Ninth Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT Tenth Respondent
MEC FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, GAUTENG Eleventh Respondent
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT FOR CO-OPERATIVE
GOVERNANCE AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, GAUTENG Twelfth Respondent
MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS Thirteenth Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN SETTLEMENTS Fourteenth Respondent
THE PREMIER FOR THE PROVINCE OF GAUTENG Fifteenth Respondent
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected
and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal
representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on
CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be 8 June 2026.
JUDGMENT
POTTERILL J
Introduction
[1] The applicant, Redefine Retail (Pty) Ltd [Redefine] is the owner of the retail
mall, Centurion Mall and the property it is located on. The mall is adjacent to a man -
made lake, the Centurion Lake [Lake]. The Hennops River was diverted from its
natural course to develop the Lake in the 1980’s. The Lake has become hazardous
due to long term and persistent pollution with a pungent smell emanating from the
Lake and rendering human contact with the Lake unsafe. With this extraordinary
pollution the Lake is unusable and life -threatening with soil erosion and excessive
silting occurring upstream in the Hennops River to the Lake.
[2] The impacted area is not only the Lake, but two tributaries, the Sesmylspruit
and the Kaalspruit/Olifantspruit that join forming the Hennops River that flows into the
Lake. The Sesmylspruit is also impacted by the discharges from the Hartbeesfontein
Wastewater Treatment Works.
[3] The first three respondents are the Metropolitan Municipalities of Tshwane
[CoT], Johannesburg [CoJ] and Ekurhuleni [CoE]. The Kaalspruit River originates in
an area south of Tembisa within the area of jurisdiction of CoE. It then flows
northwards through Kaalfontein, Tembisa and Ivory Park which resorts under the
jurisdiction of CoJ, to the confluence with the Hennops River. The Hennops River
flows into the Lake in Centurion, that falls within CoT’s administration. The severe
pollution of the Kaalspruit River is through contamination by industrial waste,
residential effluent from informal settlements and sand from illegal mining that is
destructing the Kaalspruit wetlands.
[4] The fifth to tenth respondents in essence comprise the Departments of Water
and Sanitation, Agriculture and Rural Development Gauteng, and Forestry, Fisheries
and Environment. These departments have a duty to comply and enforce steps to
remedy the decades of pollution of the Lake and the catchment areas of Hennops
and Kaalspruit.
[5] The crux of the matter was Redefine seeking supervisory orders against CoT,
CoJ and CoE and the departments to develop an action plan to address the causes
of the pollution and rehabilitation of the areas impacted by the pollution.
[6] Pursuant to a case management meeting, an inspection in loco was held that
led to the parties agreeing to a draft order. The only three issues not agreed upon
led to the parties agreeing to a draft order. The only three issues not agreed upon
relate to the following clauses:
Paragraph 8.3: “The Kaalspruit Climate Relisient Catchment Management
Plan will be updated by the Intergovernmental Task Team events since 20 23,
and the expert report submitted by Redefine. ” The respondents object to
Redefine’s expert report being considered including whether the
Intergovernmental Task Team should consider only events since 2023.
Paragraph 15: “The Intergovernmental Task Team will provide the court,
Redefine and the Respondents with a quarterly progress report.” The
respondents object to the Court and Redefine receiving the reports.
Lastly the issue of costs is to be determined by the Court.
Redefine’s expert report
[7] All the parties were served with Mr Pretorius’ expert report. None of the
parties submitted that he is not an expert, or that the content of his report is
incorrect. I do accept that the settlement overtook the opportunity for the
respondents to file their own expert report. However, the objection is in essence not
against the report, but that the Court cannot tell the Task Team what to consider i.e.
use Mr Pretorius’ report.
[8] On behalf of Redefine it was argued that Mr Pretorius’ report did criticize
Tshwane’s past effort, but the plan carefully considered what is need ed to
rehabilitate the Lake. Furthermore, the order would not instruct the Task Team to
implement Mr Pretorius’ report.
[9] I can see no prejudice to the respondents for the Task Team to consider the
report. It was common cause between the parties that the Task Team will consider
these papers and the report is part and parcel of the papers. The Court is not
instructing the Task Team to adopt or implement the report. All three the
municipalities complained bitterly about funding to address the pollution, if this report
can be utilised as a fellow starting point it may curtail some expenses to the benefit
of not only the Municipalities, but also the citizens of South Africa who has a right to
unpolluted water.
Must the Court and Redefine be provided with a quarterly progress report?
[10] Structural interdicts create space for dialogue between the court, government
and civil society actors. A structur al interdict does not violate the doctrine of the
separation of powers, but in fact preserves the doctrine. This is a remedy normally
used to enforce socio-economic rights where institutional failure is widespread.
used to enforce socio-economic rights where institutional failure is widespread.
[11] The question thus is whether the municipalities and the departments have
failed in their duties pertaining to pollution of the rivers and the Lake. The structural
interdict must also seek to prevent future irreparable harm.
[12] The Municipalities and the Departments have a constitutional duty to ensure
that everyone has a right to water and to guard against pollut ers. Section 24 of the
Constitution entrench ed this right to water and a safe environment. Under the
Constitution the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 [NEMA] , the
National Water Act 36 of 1998 [NWA], the National Environment Act: Air Quality Act
39 of 2004 and the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 were promulgated. Furthermore,
there are by-laws enacted by the Municipalities enabling them to fulfil this duty.
[13] It is common cause that South Africa is fundamentally water -scarce. The
influence of global warming adds further risks. The baseline of scarcity is the
environment, but the day-to-day crises are largely institutional, mismanagement and
infrastructure. At the inspection in loco seeing the pollution of the rivers was
appalling and harrowing. The institutional neglect was apparent. The Court did note
that the CoT was putting measures in place to address the pollution. I also accept
that unlawful informal settlements play a role. But, these serious issues should have
been addressed and must now urgently be addressed.
[14] Although Courts are cautious to grant structural interdicts and do not do so
willy-nilly1 this matter requires temporary supervised oversight to ensure that a
committed and earnest effort is put in to achieve the goal of ensuring unpolluted
water, not only to the Lake, but the rivers and the water supply of South Africa. Such
an order will ensure accountability, discipline and keep the Task Team on track.
[15] I see no prejudice in Redefine receiving the reports, it had to approach a
Court to obtain commitment and has a right to be informed of progress.
Who must pay the costs of the application?
[16] On behalf of Redefine it was submitted that the three Municipalities must pay
the costs of the application. Redefine litigated in its own name as well as the public
interest in terms of the appropriate legislation to have the environment protected
against pollution and ecological degradation. The application fell squarely within the
Biowatch principle.
[17] It was substantially successful if one compares what was sought in the notice
[17] It was substantially successful if one compares what was sought in the notice
of motion and what the parties ha d settled on. The Municipalities and the
Departments agreed to establish an Intergovernmental Task Team as sought in the
application and pursuant to the inspection in loco. In a nutshell the proposed draft
order establishes a comprehensive framework to develop and implement a
rehabilitation plan for the Kaalspruit Catchment and all the impacted areas, including
the Lake.
1 Mzalisi NO and Others v Ochogwu and Another 2020 (3) SA 83 (SCA) par [13]
[18] The settlement did not include the declarations it sought regarding
constitutional and statutory non -compliance, but the relief agreed upon could only
follow if the municipalities and departments had breached their constitutional and
statutory duties. Furthermore, with the terms of the settlement as agreed, no
declaration of invalidity is required before just and equitable relief may be granted.
[19] Redefine has achieved a comprehensive framework to develop and
implement a rehabilitation plan for the Kaalspruit Catchment and the impacted areas,
including the Lake.
[20] It also sought the costs of the joinder application that was insisted upon by
CoT and CoE.
Argument by Tshwane
[21] Much was made of the fact that the issues raised in the notice of motion
remain contested, the settlement only constituted an Intergovernmental Task Team,
confirming that CoT did not concede that Redefine is entitled to the relief sought.
[22] The source of the pollution of the Lake occurs upstream and therefor e CoT
cannot prevent the movement of the pollutants or eliminate the source of the
pollution. The only steps that CoT can do is to remedy the effects of the pollution,
that has been done, as was clear from the inspection in loco.
[23] As the issues remain live, Redefine is not substantially successful and it is not
entitled to costs. Each party should pay their own costs.
CoJ’s argument pertaining to costs
[24] Much of the argument revolved around the informal settlement at Ivory Park
that is the major contributor towards pollution. CoJ settled because it considered
these residents required it to fulfil its constitutional obligation to ensure that there is a
safe environment for all in terms of the Constitution and NEMA.
[25] CoJ has taken steps to eliminate pollution by instituting applications for
evictions for the unlawful occupiers that invade and build illegal structures.
[26] Its admission that there is pollution of Ivory Park it did n ot admit liability that
[26] Its admission that there is pollution of Ivory Park it did n ot admit liability that
this contributed to the water pollution at the Lake.
[27] Much reliance was placed on the fact that Redefine ha d not prior to this
application engaged with C oJ in respect of the crisis at the Lake excepting for the
correspondence dated 24 July 2019 to the DWS.
[28] CoJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Kaalspruit and Ivory Park and it had no
obligation in law to engage directly in the state of the Lake.
[29] It was submitted that in exercising its discretion pertaining to costs the Court
should consider the fact that CoJ engaged fruitfully with the parties in this matter and
refrained from blame-shifting. Each party should pay their own costs.
[30] CoJ should not be burdened with the costs of the joinder applicat ion as it did
not engage in this dispute between Redefine, CoT and CoE.
Argument on costs by CoE
[31] Prior to the institution of these proceedings Redefine failed to engage with
CoE prior to launching the proceedings against it. It is inexplicable why it did not do
so, and by not engaging them these proceedings were an abuse of process.
[32] The settlement is a compromise and the draft order is by agreement before
the Court. There is thus not a loser or a winner and Redefine should have settled
that each party pay their own costs. Now Redefine must pay the costs by forcing a
hearing on the costs.
[33] Redefine is clothing its commercial interests with constitutional rights.
The Departments’ argument on costs
[34] It was submitted that each party should pay their own costs, but alternatively
the 5th-10th respondents tendered that the costs of the application should be shared
equally between these respondents.
Reasons for decision on costs
[35] Redefine in drafting its application was careful to not seek from the Court an
order that could lead to the Court breaching the separation of powers principle. It
sought an order that would invoke a coordinated governmental response to deal with
the ecological disaster; pollution . Even though it is not a final order on th e merits,
the draft order agreed to has achieved this and I am satisfied that Redefine is
substantially successful. When comparing the notice of motion and the draft order
its main purpose has been achieved.
[36] It is trite that a successful party is entitled to its costs. Where a matter has
been settled the Court must, with the material at its disposal , exercise its discre tion
been settled the Court must, with the material at its disposal , exercise its discre tion
judicially when awarding the costs.
[37] As for CoT the Court from the inspection in loco took note that the CoT has
put measures in place to curb the pollution from upstream, but it has contributed in
the silt trap at the Lake. The argument of CoJ that it is only responsible for a small
portion, i.e. part of Tembisa and Ivory Park may be correct , but that small portion
contributes majorly to the issue of pollution. The problem of the informal settlement
is complicated, but not a catch -all defence to the pollution or a reason to absolve
them from costs.
[38] The arguments that CoJ and CoE were not prior to the application engaged
does not absolve them from costs. It may have been different if they abided the
Court’s decision, but they launched fully -fledged opposition to the application. I
accept the argument on behalf of Redefine that it would in any event be difficult to
engage CoJ and CoE when not fa lling within their jurisdictions. This is confirmed by
CoT expressing that it could not deal with CoJ and CoE as not falling within their
parameters.
[39] The matter was only settled after the inspection in loco with Redefine having
borne the full costs of the motion proceedings. The proceedings had reached the
stage where the heads of argument had been filed.
[40] The gracious tender by the 5 th-10th respondents that the costs be borne
equally between the First, Second, Third and Fifth -Tenth Respondents, is a manner
to reduce the costs to the Municipalities.
[41] The attached draft order is made an order of Court.
___________________________
S. POTTERILL
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-077106
HEARD ON: 11 May 2026
FOR THE APPLICANT: ADV. D. WATSON
ADV. C. DU TOIT
INSTRUCTED BY: Werksmans Attorneys
FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT: ADV. M.M. RIP SC
ADV. H.A. MPSHE
INSTRUCTED BY: Diale Mogashoa Attorneys
FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT: ADV. J.M.V. MALEMA
INSTRUCTED BY: Padi Incorporated Attorneys
FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT: ADV. G. BADELA
INSTRUCTED BY: MB Mabunda Incorporated
FOR THE 5TH-10TH RESPONDENTS: ADV. J. RUST SC
ADV. M. BOKO
INSTRUCTED BY: State Attorney, Pretoria
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 8 June 2026
“X”
8/6/2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-077106
PRETORIA, 8 June 2026
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE POTTERILL
In the matter between:
REDEFINE RETAIL (PTY) LTD Applicant
and
CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 1st Respondent
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 2nd Respondent
CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY 3rd Respondent
EKURULENI WATER CARE COMPANY NPC 4th Respondent
MINISTER OF WATER AND SANITATION 5th Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 6th Respondent
WATER AND SANITATION
MEC FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, 7th Respondent
GAUTENG
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 8th Respondent
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GAUTENG
MINISTER OF FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND 9th Respondent
THE ENVIRONMENT
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF 10th Respondent
FORESTRY, FISHERIES AND THE ENVIRONMENT
MEC FOR CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE AND 11th Respondent
TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, GAUTENG
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE GOVERNANCE 12th Respondent
AND TRADITIONAL AFFAIRS, GAUTENG
MINISTER OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS 13th Respondent
DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR THE DEPARTMENT 14th Respondent
OF HUMAN SETTLEMENTS
THE PREMIER FOR THE PROVINCE OF GAUTENG 15th Respondent
HAVING HEARD COUNSEL AND BY AGREEMENT between the parties, and the
Gauteng Department for the Environment, which has agreed to be join ed to these
proceedings for the purposes of this order, an order is made in the following terms:
1 The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fi fth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Respondent
and the Gauteng Department for the Envi ronment agree that an Intergovernmental
Task Team will be established to address the issues that came to the fore as a result
of this application, some of which were highlighted by the inspection in loco of 10
March 2026, and that the Minister for Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, or his
delegate shall chair and co-ordinate the Intergovernmental Task Team.
2 The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth and Tenth Respondents and the Gauteng
Department for the Environment agree to participate and co -operate in the
Intergovernmental Task Team.
3 The First Respondent ("City of Tshwane"), Second Respondent ("City of
Johannesburg") and Third Respondent ("City of Ekurhuleni") agree to participate and
co-operate in the Intergovernmental Task Team.
4 The City of Tshwane, City of Johannesburg and City of Ekurhuleni record that
their ability to implement projects to rehabilitate the Centurion Lake and the
Kaalspruit Catchment will depend upon the availability and raising of funding for the
projects identified by this Intergovernmental Task Team.
5 The Applicant ("Redefine") reserves the right to challenge any of the
Respondents on a failure to raise the necessary funding for the projects identified by
this Intergovernmental Task Team.
6 The Eleventh to Fifteenth Respondent s, are inst ructed to participate and co-
operate in the Intergovernmental Task Team.
7 The parties agree that:
7.1 The impacted area consists of the Centurion Lake and two tribut aries,
namely the Sesmylspruit and the Kaalsprui t/Olifantspruit, which join to form
the headwaters of the Hennops River and flow into Centurion Lake. For the
avoidance of doubt, the Kaalspruit Catchment shall be construed to include
the Olifantsfontein Wastewater Treatment Works discharges, and the
Sesmylspruit, which is impacted by discharges from Hartbeesfontein
Wastewater Treatment Works, so that the entirety of the catchment affected
by pollution is subject to this agreement
7.2 Gauteng Department of Environment has an existing Kaalspruit
Climate Resilient Task Team, attached hereto as annexure A, that will be
incorporated into the Intergovernmental Task Team, inclusive of the World
Bank and National Treasury.
8 The parties record that:
8.1 In a joint effort to addres s urgent cli mate adaptation in this vulnerable
area, the World Bank through the Cities Support Program, in partnership with
the City of Tshwane, City of Johannesburg, and City of Ekurhuleni, launched
the Resilient Kaalspruit Catchment Program.
8.2 The Kaalspruit Climate Resilient Catchment Management Plan
prepared by Gauteng Department for Environment and dated 8 March 2023,
attached hereto as annexure B, may be used as a possible point of departure
for the projects that are needed to address th e issues that came to the fore.
All the documents filed on Caselines pertaining to this matter is to be
considered.
8.3 The Kaalspruit Climate Resilient Catchment Management Plan will be
updated by the Intergovernmental Task Team considering events since 2023,
and the expert report submitted by Redefine.
9 The first meeting of the Intergovernmental Task Team was held on Friday 10
April 2026 at 11:00 at Environment House, situated at 4[...] S[...] B[...] Road at the
corner of Soutpansberg Road, Arcadia, Pretoria.
9.1 The First to the Sixth Respondents, the Nineth to the Fifteenth
Respondents and the Gauteng Department of Environment attended the
meeting of 10 April 2026.
9.2 Representatives from National Treasury and the World Bank, was
invited to attend the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Task Team and will
be invited to attend future meetings of the Intergovernmental Task Team.
10 Each of the Respondents shall nominate a representative with the authority to
make decisions there and then, to participate in the Intergovernmental Task Team.
10.1 Each nominated representative shall be accompanied by the
Intergovernmental Task Team.
10.2 All parties shall act with the u tmost bona fides and transparency in
meeting and advancing the objectives of the Intergovernmental Task Team.
10.3 Each party further undertakes to support and give effect to the work of
the Intergovernmental Task Team and to ensure that a duly authorised
representative is present at all Intergovernmental Task Team meetings to
participate meaningfully in the fulfilment of its mandate.
11 At the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Task Team, the City of Tshwane,
City of Johannesburg and City of Ekurhuleni shall each provide details on:
11.1 their respective budgets for the rehabilitation of the Kaalspruit
Catchment, with specific reference to the rehabilitation of the identified two
tributaries, the Sesmylspruit, Kaalspruit/Olifantspruit, the Hennops River and
Centurion Lake;
11.2 their respective town planning schemes, budgets and project plans for
the relocation of informal settlements that contribute to the pollution of the
Kaalspruit Catchment; and
11.3 their respective storm water systems and sewer lines, as well as their
respective budgets and project plans for the repair and maintenance thereof.
12 The estimated time within which the necessary rehabilitation may respectively
be accomplished, provided that the necessary funds are made available, shall be
determined after an initial sampling exercise at all three of the relevant municipalities
have been completed and the results thereof have been interpreted by the
independent specialist appointed by the DFFE.
12.1 Environmental inspectors ("EM Is") from the DFFE have con ducted a
sampling exercise in the City of Tshwane, and the City of Ekurhuleni.
12.2 The agenda for the sampling exercise was circulated to the Applicant
and to all Respondents, and the parties were welcome to accompany the
EMIs in the sampling regime.
12.3 A further sampling exercise will be conducted during the week of 20 to
24 April 2026 in the City of Tshwane, the City of Johannesburg, and the City
24 April 2026 in the City of Tshwane, the City of Johannesburg, and the City
of Ekurhuleni.
13 The Intergovernmental Task Team will determine, amongst other
determinations, the following:
13.1 The dates, times and sampling points of a regular sampling program, to
be interpreted by an independent expert to be appointed by the DFFE.
13.2 The terms of reference for the a ppointment of the independent expert,
and a specialist consultant team to provide, amongst other services, project
management, secretarial serv ices and the administrative duties to ensure
compliance with this Court order.
13.3 The immediate, intermediate a nd long-term projects to be undertaken
by each of the relevant municipalities respect ively, as well as the t ime frame
within which to finalise each such project.
14 The purpose of the Intergovernmental. Task Team will be to work towards an
environmental co-operation agreement as contemplated in section 35 of the National
Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 ("NEMA") specifically for the Kaalspruit
Catchment and the impacted area.
15 The Intergovernmental Task Team will provide the Court, Redefine and the
Respondents with a quarterly progress report.
16 The first report must address:
16.1 Subject to paragraph 4 above, the mechanisms being investigated to
ensure that funding is available or has been obtained to complete the projects
and/or intervention identified as necessary to rehabilitate the impacted area
within the Kaalspruit Catchment, including but not limited to:
16.1.1 which respondent is investigating a specific funding mechanism;
and
16.1.2 the timelines of the investigation.
16.2 The timelines agreed upon by this Task Team to follow the process set
out in section 35 of NEMA.
16.3 The results of all sampling exercises conducted in the City of Tshwane,
the City of Johannesburg and the City of Ekurhuleni, and the methodology
employed.
16.4 The immediate, intermediate and long -term projects that are being
investigated by the Task Team and to which of the relevant municipalities the
project is applicable and the estimated timing of each of the projects.
17 The First, Second, Third and Fifth to Tenth Respondents are to share the
costs equally. The costs of two counsel are granted on respectively scale Band C.
The costs of the joinder application are to be borne by the First and Third
Respondents. The costs include the preparation and qualifying fees of Redefine's
expert witness, Mr Pretorius.
[42]
BY ORDER
THE REGISTRAR
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Applicant: Adv D Watson
watson@group621.co.za
0712602390
Adv C du Tait
carina.dutoit@icloud.com
071 603 8292
1st Respondent: Advocate M Rip SC
083 279 6488
mmrip@counseltsa.co.za
Adv H Mpshe
083 295 1874
mpshe@loftusadv.co.za
2nd Respondent: Adv M Malema
078 685 9636
advocate.malema@gmail.com
3rd Respondent: Adv G Badela
082 909 2164
ghandi@badela.co.za
5th to 10th Respondent: Adv J Rust SC
Tel: 083 445 2911
Email: jolandierust@advchambers.co.za
Adv M Boko Tel: 061 517 6996
Email: adv.boko@clubadvocates.co.za