Click here to read the full judgment on Saflii 

1                    On 13 July 2026, I dismissed an application for leave to appeal brought in this matter by the first to third respondents (to whom I shall refer collectively as “the municipality”). I indicated at the time I refused leave for appeal that I would make my reasons for doing so known in due course. These are my reasons.

2                    The municipality sought leave to appeal against an interim order I granted on 12 June 2026. The interim order restored around 570 individuals and their families (‘the occupiers”) to the N12 informal settlement near Cloverdene in Benoni (“the property”). It interdicted and restrained the municipality from demolishing any structure erected at the settlement until the final determination of the applicants’ prayers for final interdictory and declaratory relief permanently restraining the occupiers’ removal from the settlement without a court order. I directed the first respondent, Ekurhuleni Municipality, to erect temporary structures which will house the occupiers while their application for final relief is heard; that the dwellings be capable of being dismantled in the event that the application for final relief is unsuccessful;  and that the construction of the dwellings commence by no later than 17 June 2026 and be complete by 30 June 2026. I allowed that these dates could be varied on application to me on good cause shown. I interdicted and restrained the respondents from preventing or interfering with any steps the occupiers might take to re-occupy the property in the meantime, whether or not the temporary structures have been completed. I directed the second respondent, the Mayor, and the third respondent, the City Manager, to report back to me by 15 July 2026 on the progress they have made in implementing my order. I retained supervisory jurisdiction to oversee the implementation of the interim relief.

3                    In its notice of application for leave to appeal, filed on 29 June 2026, the municipality initially sought to appeal against the whole of my judgment and interim order. At the hearing before me, however, in both his written and oral submissions, Mr. Sithole, who appeared for the municipality, formally abandoned the application against all except paragraphs 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and paragraphs 3 to 6 of my order. It was also clear from Mr. Sithole’s oral argument that the municipality now accepts that illegal evictions took place during the operations the respondents conducted at the N12 settlement between 6 and 15 May 2026.