The illegal selling of stands for the purpose of township development on a repossessed agricultural farm just outside of Louis Trichardt, a fortnight ago was not an isolated incident.

On the same day that hundreds of wanna-be property owners descended on the farm Welgevonden to pay their R120 deposit for a stand, the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria granted an urgent interdict against the illegal occupation and demarcation of stands on a farm near Elim.

The application for urgent relief against illegal occupation was brought on July 28 by the 71-year-old Mr Edward Mafune and his wife Masundwa, registered owners of portion 1 of the farm Hayani 51, portion 3 of the farm Doornspruit 41 and the remaining extent of the farm Uitspanning 40. This follows after members of the Ramaru community started demarcating stands on his farm along the fence bordering the Mpheni informal village. The first respondent in the case was Chief A Ramaru, second respondent Mr George Ramalata, third respondent Mr Rakuambo, fourth respondent Chief M F Davhana and fifth and sixth respondents Mr O Maumela and the Regional Land Claims Commissioner.

In his founding affidavit, Mafune stated that he had gathered that the Davhanas and Ramarus had both lodged a land claim on his farm on behalf of their communities. However, Mafune stated, he had not been served with any documentation pertaining to the land claim, nor had he been advised that the land claim had been Gazetted. In the affidavit he submitted, however, that the publication or validity of the claims was irrelevant for the purpose of the urgent relief sought.

Mafune’s troubles started on July 13 when he, whilst inspecting his farm, came across several stands being laid out on his property. Here he met a Mr George Ramalata, who told him that Chief Ramaru was the person responsible for allocating stands and allowing demarcation to take place and that they were within their rights to do so.

The following day, Mafune asked the Makhado Municipality for assistance in the matter, but the municipality merely referred him to the Department of Land Affairs, where he managed to lodge a complaint. According to Mafune, the department had met with the Davhanas, as well as the Ramarus, but had failed to involve him as the legal owner of the land in any discussions. By July 20, the illegal occupation and demarcation of stands continued.

On this day, Mafune met Mr Rakuambu on his property, who was busy allocating stands and allowing people to cut down trees and clean demarcated areas. “… on my last inspection on 26 July, I established that the Davhanas were now joining in the intended occupation and preparation to occupy as the result of the first and third respondent’s action,” Mafune stated in his affidavit.

Seen in light of the Department of Land Affairs´ failure to involve him as someone with a direct and substantial interest in negotiations, Mafune stated in his affidavit “that there is a threatened invasion of my property and having regard to what has happened in the past pertaining to unlawful occupation of land and the pitfalls that landowners face in order to get people evicted from their land, that the relief sought is the only viable remedy that I have against the intended unlawful actions by the respondents.” Mafune further stated that if occupation took place, the whole process as envisaged by the Restitution of Land Reform Act would be circumvented.

As basis for the urgency of the interdict, Mafune argued that “it is clear that the demarcation will now proceed to full-scale occupation.”

The matter was heard by Justice De Vos in the High Court on August 2, with a ruling in Mafune’s favour. De Vos ordered that the respondents be interdicted from allocating, demarcating and/or taking any actions in furthering or promoting the occupation of any portion of the said farms. The respondents were also ordered to remove any demarcation or allocation of land within 12 hours from service of the court order. The respondents were also prohibited from entering onto Mafune’s land for any reason whatsoever.

As for cost, De Vos ruled that the first, second, third and fourth respondents were jointly and severally ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party and party scale, the one to pay the others to be absolved. No order as to costs was made against the fifth and sixth respondents.

The respondents undertook to abide by the ruling.