A legal dispute has erupted in the Free State High Court between the Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality and the Bakholokoe kingdom over the occupation and use of municipal land in Harrismith.
The case, which pits the municipality against King Letsitsa Moloi and other respondents, comes on the back of the traditional leaders’ failed court challenge recently in the same Bloemfontein High Court, seeking to strip the ANC’s top seven leaders, including President Cyril Ramaphosa, of their powers as office bearers of the party’s national executive committee.
At the heart of both matters is a broader conflict over the restoration of land, the role of traditional authorities, and the ANC’s adherence to constitutional and historical obligations.
In an apparent pushback, the municipality alleges that the kingdom and its co-respondents have unlawfully occupied and sold portions of the municipal land, claiming that such actions are criminal and detrimental to the community.
In its application, the municipality seeks an urgent order under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) to evict them from the land.
The relief requested includes prohibiting them from demarcating or constructing structures on the land. The municipality also wants an order authorising the sheriff and police to enforce the eviction, and to also order the respondents to pay costs on a punitive scale.
The municipality argues that the kingdom and its co-respondents have no right or control over the subject property and that their actions exceed the likely hardship to it and the community at large if an order for their eviction is not granted.
“The municipality further contends that the eviction is in the public interest.”
However, Moloi, representing the kingdom and other respondents, has strongly opposed the application, asserting that the municipality lacks jurisdiction and legal standing to bring the matter forward.
In his answering affidavit, Moloi states that the municipality is not the custodian of the land from which the relief is sought.
He further argues that the kingdom is the custodian of the land, given the history of the property.
Moloi challenges the urgency of the application, describing it as “vague and embarrassing”.
He contends that the municipality failed to comply with the procedural requirements for urgent applications.
Moloi also said in terms of the constitution they are protected against arbitrary deprivation of property and eviction without a court order.
He argues that the municipality failed to undertake the legal requirements for an eviction and ignored the best practices that are important to note.
The respondents further allege that the municipality did not attempt mediation or dispute resolution as required under the PIE Act.
“The principles of co-operative government and intergovernmental relations [in] the Constitution mandate all spheres of government and all organs of state within each sphere to co-operate with one another in mutual trust and good faith by avoiding legal proceedings against one another.”
The case has drawn attention to broader issues of land rights and governance, with Moloi emphasising the role of the kingdom as custodians of the land.
“The undersigned submits that any question of law arising from the title deed requires the original title deed registering the owner of the property, and the Bakholokoe kingdom is the custodian of the land, given the history of the property.”
As the legal battle unfolds, the court is tasked with determining whether the municipality’s claims of urgency and public interest outweigh the respondents’ constitutional rights and historical claims to the land.
The matter is set to be heard on Thursday, with both sides preparing to present their arguments.
