Badenhorst and Others v City Of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (00052/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 190 (8 March 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 190 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Badenhorst and Others v City Of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (00052/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 190 (8 March 2023) Badenhorst and Others v City Of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (00052/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 190 (8 March 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_190.html sino date 8 March 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG) Case No. 00052/2023 (1)    REPORTABLE:  NO (2)    OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO (3)    REVISED. DATE: 8 March 2023 In the matter between: JEROME BADENHORST First Applicant THE UNLAWFUL OCCUPIERS OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AT PORTION 102, HOLGATFONTEIN 36 Second & IR NIGEL, also known as MACKENZIEVILLE EXTENSION Further Applicants and CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY First Respondent THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT, NIGEL Second Respondent THE SOUTH AFRICAN POLICE SERVICES, NIGEL Third Respondent CITY OF EKURHULENI METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT Fourth Respondent ##### ##### JUDGMENT JUDGMENT WILSON J: 1 Earlier today, I handed down a judgment explaining my reasons for making an order declaring that the first, third and fourth respondents’ execution of an eviction order in the absence of the second respondent, the Sheriff, on 28 February 2023, was unlawful. The judgment was handed down in response to an application for leave to appeal brought by the first respondent, Ekurhuleni Municipality, against that declaratory order, and a request that I provide my reasons for making it. 2 During the course of that judgment, I pointed out, as an aside, that Ekurhuleni Municipality had not applied for leave to appeal against a further order I made, ancillary to the declaratory order, that those of the applicants evicted be restored to possession of the properties from which they were removed. 3 The observation appears to have provoked a further application for leave to appeal against that aspect of the order, for which I have now been asked to provide a second set of reasons. 4 To the extent that Ekurhuleni Municipality’s legal representatives could have been in any doubt, I confirm that my reasons for ordering that the applicants be restored to the properties from which they were evicted are the same as my reasons for declaring the eviction to have been unlawful. As I said in my main judgment, the purported execution of the eviction order was “no more than a spoliation. I treated it as such”. S D J WILSON Judge of the High Court HEARD ON:                   3 March 2023 DECIDED ON:               8 March 2023 For the Applicants:                                 D Brown Instructed by:                                         Chris Billings Attorneys For the First Respondent:                      E Sithole Instructed by:                                         Lebea Inc Attorneys sino noindex make_database footer start