The Durban High Court denied permission to appeal a ruling that prevented the Independent Ethiopian Church of South Africa and Zama Masika from being forced to leave two properties in the Mandeni municipal area and Farm Amanda.
The initial application, which also asked for authorisation to tear down a partially constructed building that covered both properties, was denied along with costs.
The municipality asserted ownership rights to evict the two, claiming that the church had constructed without permission in contravention of the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act 103 of 1977.
The court concluded, however, that the municipality had not provided a valid reason for the eviction.
The municipality claimed a lease agreement with the Ingonyama Trust in relation to Farm Amanda, but it offered no supporting documentation.
Masikane and the church claimed permission to occupy, but the court determined that verifying this claim was unnecessary because the applicant had not proven its case.
Biased accusations rejected
“The applicant’s grounds for appeal included accusations of judicial bias, mala fide conduct, and misdirection in analysing ownership rights under the Ingonyama Trust Act 3 of 1994.
“The court rejects these claims, noting that no recusal application was made during the hearing, and the applicant’s counsel could not substantiate allegations of misconduct beyond dissatisfaction with the ruling,” said Acting Judge Sandhya Mahabeer.
The court rejected the biased and dishonest accusations as unfounded, citing Transnet National Ports Authority v. Umhlathuze General Sales and Services as further support.
Mahabeer came to the conclusion that there were neither compelling grounds to grant the appeal nor a reasonable chance that an appeal court would come to a different conclusion.
The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, citing the municipality’s inability to meet the legal threshold for eviction.
“I find that there is no reasonable prospect that a court of appeal would arrive at a different conclusion in this dispute and that there are no compelling reasons to grant the application for leave to appeal,” said Mahabeer.
