Press Statement: The Palmridge Magistrates Court Rejects Eviction Bid Against Vulnerable Occupiers in Moshoeshoe Township

Date: 21/05/2026


On 24 April 2026, the Palmridge Magistrates Court dismissed, with costs, an eviction application brought by the applicant against his sister and other occupiers (our clients) in relation to a long-occupied family home in Moshoeshoe Township.       

  

On 24 April 2026, the Palmridge Magistrates Court dismissed, with costs, an eviction application brought by the applicant against his sister and other occupiers (our clients) in relation to a long occupied family home in Moshoeshoe Township.

The matter concerned an attempt to evict the respondents, who are family members, from a property where occupation and ownership arrangements were historically shaped by apartheid era racial exclusion, gender discrimination, and unequal access to formal property rights.

Although the Applicant was reflected as the legal owner, the Court heard that this status was due to historical permit systems that recognised him as the principal holder by virtue of being an adult male at the time. His mother, a Coloured woman residing in a Black township, could not be recognised as permit holder under the discriminatory laws then in force

The Applicant later sought to rely on that historically distorted legal position to evict his own 79-year-old sister and other family occupiers.

In dismissing the application, the Court accepted that it could not perpetuate the racial and gender injustices of the past through present-day eviction proceedings.

The Court remarked that the Respondents had given the Court an “history lesson in apartheid”, highlighting how many current township ownership disputes remain rooted in discriminatory legal systems.

The First and Second Respondents were represented by Lawyers for Human Rights in successfully opposing the application.

This judgment is significant because it recognizes that formal ownership cannot be viewed in isolation from the historical conditions under which such ownership was created. Courts are required to consider justice, equity, family occupation, and the enduring legacy of apartheid spatial and property laws.

In the judgment, the court held that “this court will not aid and assist the Applicabt in its pursuit to render the respondents homeless, it will be going against the principles it ought to uphold with regard to the consitution”

The order also reaffirms that eviction proceedings under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE) are not mechanical processes and they require courts to interrogate whether granting an eviction would be just and equitable in the circumstances.

The dismissal with costs sends a clear message that the courts will not be used to sanitize historical dispossession or to enforce private claims rooted in discriminatory state policy.

This outcome is an important victory for elderly occupiers, township families, and all communities still grappling with the unresolved legacy of apartheid housing administration.

Lawyers for Human Rights will continue to stand with vulnerable occupiers, in particular women and other marginalised `and vulnerable groups who face extreme barriers to securing and retaining safe housing, to ensure that dignity, fairness, and constitutional protection are meaningfully upheld!

Download judgment here: https://www.lhr.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/JUDGEMENT-Palmridge.pdf

For more information, please contact:

 

Ndivho Mashau: Ndivho@lhr.org.za | +27 12 320 2943

Lawyers for Human Rights

 

Mpho Makhubela: Mpho@lhr.org.za | +27 12 320 2943

Lawyers for Human Rights

 

Thank you for joining
Thank you for joining the LHR Newsletter, we will be in touch soon