- Most of the municipality’s appeal was dropped, and it accepted that illegal evictions had occurred.
- The High Court found there was enough evidence to allow around 570 people to return to the settlement temporarily.
- The judge ruled that the municipality did not provide a good reason to appeal the interim order before the main case is heard.
The High Court in Johannesburg dismissed the City of Ekurhuleni’s application to appeal an interim order that let about 570 people and their families return to the Chief Albert Luthuli informal settlement near Cloverdene in Benoni.
ALSO READ: Ekurhuleni faces a looming deadline to rebuild homes at N12 settlement
This application followed an earlier judgment where the court ordered the municipality to let residents return after they were unlawfully evicted during operations between 6 and 15 May 2026.
Judge SDJ Wilson, in refusing leave to appeal, noted that the municipality had changed its position since first filing its application. While it initially wanted to challenge the entire judgment, most of its appeal grounds were abandoned during the hearing, and it accepted that illegal evictions had occurred.
Dispute focused on who the occupiers were
The municipality argued there wasn’t enough evidence connecting the named applicants to the settlement right before the evictions, so they shouldn’t have received interim relief. The court rejected that argument.
Judge Wilson found that the South African Human Rights Commission had made a detailed list identifying each occupier by name, identity number, and stand number. The commission confirmed under oath that the list was accurate, which the court said was enough to justify urgent interim relief.
The municipality also relied on a recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment about demolishing informal settlements. But the judge said that the case was different because it dealt with final relief, not urgent interim relief.
He said that expecting displaced residents to provide more evidence right after their homes were demolished would be unfair and unrealistic, especially since the demolition often destroys documents and possessions needed to prove occupation.
Interim order remains in force
The court also rejected the municipality’s argument that the earlier order was effectively a final decision. Judge Wilson said the relief was clearly temporary and would only stay in place until the court decides if the occupiers can stay on the land permanently.
If the municipality eventually wins the main case, the occupiers would have to leave, and any temporary accommodation set up under the interim order could be taken down.
No exceptional circumstances
The judge also said that interim interdicts are usually not appealable unless there are exceptional circumstances and the interests of justice demand immediate intervention.
He found no exceptional circumstances in this case and pointed out that the municipality had not shown any serious injustice that would justify an appeal before the main case is heard.
The application to appeal was therefore dismissed. The interim order restoring the occupiers and requiring the municipality to provide temporary accommodation will remain in force until the final decision is made.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
