13 May 2025
A Johannesburg High Court has slammed a group of people who tried to use the courts to grab land in Muldersdrift. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
A Johannesburg High Court Judge has slammed a group of people who occupied land in Muldersdrift, saying they were trying to secure a “court sanctioned” land grab.
Judge Denise Fisher dismissed an interim interdict granted by another judge which stopped the Mogale City Local Municipality from evicting a group of families from a vacant plot for not complying with the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
She said the plight of the occupiers initially appeared to be “distressing” but it later emerged that they were part of a syndicate intent on gaining “unlawful possession of state land by stealth”.
What was worse in this case, Judge Fisher said, was that the land had been earmarked for social housing.
Fisher explained that the interim interdict had been granted on Good Friday, 18 April following urgent proceedings. The judge heard the matter a week later on the return date.
The application - a case of alleged mass spoliation - was brought by Paul Mathlatjie, who said he represented 28 other occupiers.
“The allegations made in the founding affidavit are distressing. The occupants are said to comprise families, including children, infants and elderly persons. The central allegation is that they had inhabited this property (in Muldersdrift) since October 2024 with permission,” she said.
Mathaltjie had complained that on the morning of 17 April, the municipality had employed the notorious “Red Ants” to unlawfully evict them, dismantle their dwellings, remove their furniture and personal belongings. “Pictures of the alleged demolition are said to be attached. But they show only a desultory group of people comprising three adults and four children of various ages, including an infant tied with a blanket on the back of one. There are also scattered building materials which look brand new.”
“It was argued that this was photographic evidence of the fact that the occupants had been on the land for some time such that they had even laid cement foundations.
“The scene appeared posed and contrived. There was no indication of furnishing or personal effects,” Fisher said.
In the urgent interdict application, it was argued that the occupiers were now living in an open space, exposed to the elements and at risk of criminal activity and health hazards.
“The picture presented was one of reckless abuse of power on behalf of the State. The municipal respondents were not in a position to produce a version.”
However, the municipality had sent an advocate, but given the alleged “crisis”, the interim interdict had been granted. The City had been ordered to provide alternative accommodation and the return date was set for a week later to allow the City to file its papers.
Judge Fisher said the occupiers had argued that they should be allowed to return to the land and that their dwellings must be rebuilt by the municipality.
But, it emerged that the land was privately owned by Village Farm Administrators Pty Ltd. Managing Director Melissa Nel said, in an affidavit, that there had been a land grab on an adjacent plot, also owned by the company, and it had been keeping a “watchful eye” on the plot, fearing there would be a similar illegal land grab.
The City was expropriating the land with compensation to build RDP housing.
Both Nel and the City told the court that the aim of the occupiers was to gain possession of the land “through court processes”.
They explained that this was part of a “common strategy” where land is identified then there is a “concerted invasion” over a very short time, often only hours. This involved people converging on the land, armed with informal materials to quickly build structures to create the impression of an existing home.
“The stage is then set for an application to court with scant notice to the owners or the municipality. The intention is to obtain a final court order reinstating the structures,” Judge Fisher said.
Courts often erred on the side of protecting the vulnerable and “from this point onwards there will be legal battle after legal battle, sometimes over years, to obtain their eviction”.
“Those in control often monetise their unlawful possession by letting out or even selling plots to others.” She said in spite of the alleged urgency of the matter, the occupiers had not filed further affidavits detailing their personal circumstances or challenge the versions of Nel and the City.
“This application to my mind represents criminal behaviour and syndication. It is a cynical attempt to gain unlawful possession of land by stealth and orchestration,” Judge Fisher said.
“The use of court processes and laws which are designed to protect the vulnerable is deplorable. This is made worse by the fact that the land in question is earmarked through consent-driven expropriation for the erection of housing for those in need, many of whom have been waiting for housing for years.
“All the while, taxpayers are forced to fit the bill for the opposition required to thwart [the occupiers’] attempts at gaining court sanctioned occupation,” she said, dismissing the application and ordering the occupiers to pay punitive costs.