- The High Court rejected allegations that Mogale City was “dumping refugees and jobless” people in Hekpoort, describing the claim as “nonsensical” and “spurious”.
- Judge Makume held that the Dr Sefularo Village project was lawfully approved in 2011 and remains valid unless reviewed and set aside under PAJA.
- The residents’ interdict application was dismissed as an abuse of process, with costs awarded against the applicant on Scale B.
The High Court in Johannesburg has dismissed an attempt to halt a housing development in Hekpoort, with Judge Motsamai Makume sharply criticising claims that the Mogale City Local Municipality was “dumping refugees and jobless” people into the area.
The application was brought by the Hekpoort Residents Association, which sought to interdict the municipality and related departments from proceeding with the Dr Sefularo Village and Vogelzang housing projects pending access to planning approvals, environmental authorisations and related documentation.
“Nonsensical” and “spurious”
In his judgment, Judge Makume recorded that the founding papers were “replete with insinuations” that the municipality was responsible for the mushrooming of informal settlements in and around Hekpoort and that local tourism and guesthouse businesses were under threat.
He rejected that narrative in emphatic terms. “When Mogale City Council took a decision to establish the Dr Sefularo Village, it did so as a result of an imperative to alleviate homelessness,” he wrote.
He added: “It is, accordingly, nonsensical of the applicant to make spurious statements that it is the municipality that has been dumping refugees and unemployed people in that area.”
The court noted that some individuals living in informal settlements were people previously evicted from farms in the area. Against that backdrop, the municipality’s decision was framed as part of its obligation to respond to housing need rather than an attempt to destabilise the local community.
A 2011 decision is still in force
The township establishment was publicly advertised in 2011. Environmental authorisation was granted in May 2012, and land use rights were approved later that year. No objections were recorded at the time.
“What is strange,” Judge Makume observed, “is that this letter is addressed to the municipality 12 years after the project had been approved by the local and provincial government structures.”
He stressed that the 2011 approval constituted administrative action and “remains in full force and effect until it shall have been reviewed and set aside in terms of Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA).” The court, he said, was “not sitting as a court of review” in these proceedings.
Wrong remedy and no mandate
The court also found procedural defects in the application. Although the association claimed to represent 78 members, no resolution authorising the litigation was produced. “I have serious doubts if there is such a resolution,” Judge Makume said.
Beyond that, the requirements for interdictory relief were not met. The applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie right, irreparable harm, exceptional circumstances, or that there was no alternative remedy. The court pointed out that access to documents could have been sought under the Promotion of Access to Information Act.
Judge Makume concluded that the application was “without merit and is simply an abuse of the court process.” The application was dismissed. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs on a party and party scale, Scale B, including the costs of counsel if engaged.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
