Image created by AI

Supreme Court of Appeal Criticizes John Hlophe for Interference in Eviction Case

Published November 14, 2024
3 months ago

The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa has chastised former Western Cape Judge President John Hlophe for his inappropriate involvement in a seemingly straightforward eviction case pertaining to a property in Kraaifontein, Cape Town. This criticism comes after Hlophe's recent impeachment and highlights concerning judicial conduct. The Mzamomhle Foundation Trust, which originally bought the property to assist with community and welfare projects, faced unexpected judicial obstacles when their eviction application was handled by judges seemingly appointed under Hlophe's direct influence.





In an evolving legal drama that has caught the attention of the legal fraternity and public alike, the Supreme Court of Appeal strongly rebuked Hlophe for issuing a 14-point practice directive that seemingly influenced the initial High Court judgment, refusing eviction of unlawful occupants from the property owned by the Mzamomhle Foundation Trust.


The case revolves around the trust seeking to evict unlawful occupiers from its property, which was meant to be used for a childhood development centre. The city's initial sale to Margaret Ngaleka, and later transfer to the trust, was rendered contentious after Ngaleka's death. Her descendants, not qualified to manage the educare facility, fell into rental and municipal arrears. Despite allegations of Ngaleka being misled, evidence such as the deed of transfer and lease agreement between her and the trust belie such claims.


In a telling judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeal noted the oddity of appointing two judges for what is traditionally a single judge's purview, indicating Hlophe's inexplicable presence in the proceedings. The high court's refusal to evict was based on concerns irrelevant to the case since the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) does not apply to non-residential properties like the one in question.


The appellate court criticized the failure to recognize hearsay in the answering affidavit and questioned the credibility of evidence presented by the occupiers. Their decision highlights how the high court had been influenced by Hlophe's directives to consider factors outside the scope of the eviction case.


The consequence of such judicial overreach has led to undue pressure on the appellate court's docket and delayed resolutions for other significant cases. Moreover, the Supreme Court emphasized that the trust had proved ownership and the respondents had no lawful basis to remain. In rectifying the lower court's verdict, the judges not only reverted the use of the property to the trust but also highlighted the impact of judicial directions overstepping adversarial boundaries.


Ultimately, the appeal was upheld, restoring the trust’s right to their property and mandating the unlawful occupants to vacate within five days, with an accompanying interdict to prevent reoccupation. This ruling reinforces the property rights of lawful owners and casts a spotlight on the necessity for judicial impartiality and adherence to legal precedents.


Leave a Comment

Rate this article:

Please enter email address.
Looks good!
Please enter your name.
Looks good!
Please enter a message.
Looks good!
Please check re-captcha.
Looks good!
Leave the first review