Court saves black farmer from land invaders 

Mpumalanga High Court has returned a sprawling 24-hectare property located near the Mbombela city centre to its rightful owner following a brazen act of land invasion.  

The judgment, delivered by Acting Deputy Judge President Takalani Ratshi-bvumo, laid bare the perilous tensions between traditional councils, municipal authorities and individual landholders in a province grappling with complex land issues. 


The property, a prime stretch adjacent to the bustling N4 highway, has served as the operational hub for Ngceshe Farming, an agricultural and tourism enterprise belonging to John Mandla Lubisi.  

Lubisi’s occupation of the land was sanctioned in January 2014 by the Mpakeni Traditional Council, granting him an unbroken decade of productive use.  

However, on October 9, 2024, this tranquillity was shattered when unidentified men invaded the property, flattening parts of the land with heavy machinery. Days later, on October 11, the situation escalated when six men dismantled the access gate, expelled Lubisi’s employees, and began demarcating the land into stands for sale, all under the alleged authority of the Lomshiya Traditional Council. 

Lubisi, facing threats to his livelihood and a lack of intervention from law enforcement, turned to the courts for relief, to seek restoration of his property. In his application, Lubisi argued that his lawful and peaceful occupation had been forcibly disrupted.  

The respondents, led by Zwelakhe Xolani Nkosi and Titandi Twala, admitted to being on the property but sought to question Lubisi’s legal right to the land.  

They claimed the property fell under the jurisdiction of the Lomshiya Traditional Council, which had petitioned the City of Mbombela to reclaim neighbouring farms as part of an unresolved land ownership dispute. 

In his judgment Ratshibvumo emphasised that the law focuses on possession, not ownership, in such matters. 

“The object of the order is merely to restore the status quo ante the illegal action. It decides no rights of ownership; it secures only that if such a decision be required, it shall be given by a court of law, and not affected by violence,” he explained. 

The respondents’ defence crumbled under scrutiny as the court found their actions constituted an unlawful act of dispossession. 

 Ratshibvumo further underscored that no party, regardless of status or claim, is permitted to take the law into their own hands.  

“No man is allowed to take the law into his own hands, and to dispossess another illicitly of possession of property. This applies equally whether the despoiler is an individual or a government entity or functionary,” Ratshibvumo stated. 

The case also exposed underlying tensions between traditional councils and municipal governance. While the Lomshiya Traditional Council did not formally contest the application, its implicit involvement highlighted unresolved questions of land jurisdiction.  

The court, however, dismissed the notion that the property’s ownership or governance was relevant to the proceedings. “The lawfulness of the applicant’s possession is irrelevant. The applicant merely needs to prove undisturbed possession and unlawful dispossession.”  

The respondents argued that the Mpakeni Traditional Council, which had granted Lubisi permission to occupy the land, should have been included in the proceedings. Similarly, they questioned the inclusion of the City of Mbombela as a respondent.  

The court found the objections baseless, noting that the Mpakeni Traditional Council was not implicated in the dispossession and that the city’s role in managing illegal developments justified its involvement. 

With the spoliation order granted, the court empowered the sheriff, supported by law enforcement, to enforce the ruling and prevent any further interference with Lubisi’s operations. It also ordered the respondents to bear the legal costs, describing their actions as indefensible.  

“Issues raised by the first and second respondent are no legal defences to the spoliation claim. The application to restore the applicant to the status quo ante must therefore be allowed,” it ruled. 

 Visit SW YouTube Channel for our video content 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest News