A group of 29 people who claimed they were illegally evicted from land in Muldersdrift have had their case thrown out by a Johannesburg High Court judge.
The court found that the occupation was staged to manipulate the justice system.
The applicants, led by Paul Mathlatjie, dragged the Mogale City local municipality and its officials to court, claiming that they were illegally thrown out of their residences.
He told the court that they had been living peacefully on Plot 80 since October 2024, with permission from the municipality, and that their homes were suddenly destroyed by the “Red Ants” security group on April 17.
The land was part of a broader state-backed housing project, with expropriation processes underway to build RDP houses. The property has been under constant watch due to fears of illegal occupation. The adjacent Plot 87 was already occupied illegally, and there is ongoing legal action to evict the occupiers.
Mathlatjie said families, including babies and elderly people, were left homeless just before the Easter weekend, while some were forced to sleep in cars or around fires in the open.
The group asked the court for urgent relief, including reinstatement on the land and a court order compelling the municipality to rebuild their homes.
Judge DC Fischer found the evidence not convincing and ruled that the case was a dishonest attempt to gain land unlawfully.
“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 to the back of one of those photographed,” said Fischer.
The judge said materials like cement foundations and building supplies looked brand new and that there was no sign of personal belongings or actual and established dwellings.
The court further found that only three families had received written permission to live on the land. The rest of the applicants had no proof of lawful occupation from the landowner, Village Farm Properties, or from the municipality
Despite claiming they had nowhere to go, the applicants also refused emergency accommodation offered by the municipality, saying the land was already partially occupied and unsafe due to threats from others.
The court accepted evidence from the landowner and the municipality that what had occurred was a common and organised tactic.
According to affidavits, people intentionally move onto vacant land with building materials, set up temporary structures, and rush to court before the municipality or landowner can respond.
“Public holidays and late hours are often chosen for the elements of surprise,” said the judge.
Fischer also criticised the applicants for failing to comply with court orders. They did not provide names or identity documents for the alleged occupiers.
The applicants further filed an application asking for the municipal manager and a local councillor to be jailed or fined for contempt of court, claiming they failed to provide suitable alternative housing. This application was also dismissed.
“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 by the state of open land for the erection of housing for those in need, many of whom have been waiting for years for housing.”
The applicants were also ordered to pay the legal costs of all the respondents, jointly and severally, on a punitive scale.
