The Moses Kotane Local Municipality in Mogwase, North West, has lost a High Court bid to interdict seven residents it accused of disrupting a road project and being part of a group that allegedly demanded R200 000 for access to a sand extraction site.
The North West High Court in Mahikeng dismissed the municipality’s urgent application after finding it failed to provide basic facts linking each of the seven people to the alleged wrongdoing.
Municipality ordered to pay respondents’ legal costs
Judge Andrew Reddy, who delivered judgment on Tuesday, ordered the municipality to pay the respondents’ legal costs.
The municipality had sought sweeping interdicts preventing Tau Ephraim Nakedi, Bakang Tshenye, Kgomotso Tshenye, Shime Tshenye, Berlina Maropeng, Bashimane Maropeng and Dorah Ntwape from interfering with municipal projects.
It also cited an unidentified group allegedly associated with them. The dispute arose from the municipality’s rehabilitation of a road at Mogwase Unit 8, funded through provincial infrastructure grants.
According to municipal manager Mokopane Valtein Letsoalo, trouble initially erupted when two other people allegedly demanded a protection fee and threatened a ward councillor and his family.
The municipality secured an interdict against those two in May. But it claimed a “new group”, allegedly led by the seven respondents, subsequently targeted sand extraction at the Rhenosterspruit farm in Mabele-a-Pudi.
Trucks and an excavator prevented from accessing sand
The municipality alleged that on June 18 the group prevented trucks and an excavator from accessing sand, offloaded sand already loaded onto trucks and demanded R200 000 for access.
Nakedi disputed the allegations. He told the court the municipality had previously engaged the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela Traditional Council, Royal Family and Communal Property Association about sand extraction.
He said a May 4 meeting resolved that extraction should stop pending a memorandum of understanding. Nakedi admitted approaching excavator operators but denied any confrontation or demand for money.
Fatal weakness in municipality’s case
Despite accepting the municipality’s application was urgent and dismissing all five preliminary objections raised by the residents, Reddy found a fatal weakness in its case.
The municipality repeatedly accused “the group” or “the respondents” without identifying who allegedly performed each act.
“At no point does it attribute a particular act, on a particular date, to a particular respondent,” Reddy said.
The judge found the municipality could not show who blocked a truck, who offloaded sand or who allegedly demanded payment. Reddy said this was not merely a minor drafting defect.
“An interdict is aimed at named people because it is meant to stop those specific people, and no one else, from specific conduct,” the judge said.
An apparent contradiction in the municipality’s account
The court also identified an apparent contradiction in the municipality’s account that trucks were denied access while sand was simultaneously being offloaded from those same trucks.
Reddy found that even where wrongdoing may have occurred, a court could not impose final interdicts on identified individuals without evidence connecting each person to the conduct.
The municipality’s case against the unidentified eighth respondent also collapsed because it depended on allegations against the first seven respondents
The application was consequently dismissed, with the municipality ordered to pay the seven respondents’ costs on the ordinary party-and-party scale.
- The Moses Kotane Local Municipality in North West lost a High Court bid to interdict seven residents accused of disrupting a road project and demanding R200,000 for sand extraction access.
- The North West High Court in Mahikeng dismissed the urgent application, citing a lack of basic facts linking each accused individual to the alleged wrongdoing.
- Judge Andrew Reddy ordered the municipality to pay the legal costs of the seven respondents after finding the municipality failed to specify who committed each alleged act.
- The municipality alleged that on June 18, the group prevented trucks and an excavator from accessing sand and demanded payment, but the accused denied these allegations and cited a previous agreement to halt extraction.
- The court found contradictions in the municipality's case, such as claims that trucks were denied access while sand was being offloaded, leading to the dismissal of the application and costs against the municipality.
Judge
It also cited an unidentified group allegedly associated with them.
Nakedi disputed the allegations. He told the court the municipality had previously engaged the Bakgatla Ba Kgafela Traditional Council, Royal Family and Communal Property Association about sand extraction.
He said a May 4 meeting resolved that extraction should stop pending a memorandum of understanding. Nakedi admitted approaching excavator operators but denied any confrontation or demand for money.
Despite accepting the municipality’s application was urgent and dismissing all five preliminary objections raised by the residents, Reddy found a fatal weakness in its case.
“At no point does it attribute a particular act, on a particular date, to a particular respondent,” Reddy said.
“An interdict is aimed at named people because it is meant to stop those specific people, and no one else, from specific conduct,” the judge said.
Reddy found that even where wrongdoing may have occurred, a court could not impose final interdicts on identified individuals without evidence connecting each person to the conduct.
