Latest news with #JoburgHighCourt
The Citizen
09-07-2025
- Entertainment
- The Citizen
Malusi Gigaba's attempt to halt broadcast of ex-wife's explosive episode on ‘Untied' fails
Gigaba headed to the Joburg High Court to try prevent Mngoma's appearance on the Showmax show. Malusi Gigaba and ex-wife Norma Mngoma. Gigaba failed to halt the airing of a Mngoma interview. Pictures: Brenton Geach/Gallo Images via Getty Images/ and Supplied Malusi Gigaba's attempt to halt the broadcast of an episode where his ex-wife Norma Mngoma details the politician's alleged infidelity during their marriage has failed. After heading to the Johannesburg High Court to prevent Mngoma's appearance on the Showmax show, Untied, the court has thrown out the matter. Mngoma is part of Untied, a talk show series that unpacks the complex world of divorce through the stories of famous women who have lived it. Broadcaster Relebogile Mabotja hosts the Showmax programme. An episode has been released each week on Multichoice's streaming platform, with the first being Real Housewives of Durban cast member Nonku Williams, followed by media personality Palesa Madisakwane. Mngoma's episode was set to be broadcast before Williams' episode. However, the episode was temporarily halted by the politician, fearing that his ex-wife would speak about Gigaba's alleged infidelity during their marriage and the use of public funds. The Citizen was still awaiting comment from Multichoice at the time of publishing, but reports have stated that the case will not be heard, and Showmax can proceed to air the anticipated episode. The story will be updated when the broadcaster's comment comes through. ALSO READ: Malusi Gigaba blocks screening of ex-wife's tell-all Showmax interview Gigaba's attempts Gigaba applied for a court order to prevent ex-wife Norma Mngoma from speaking about the politician's alleged infidelity during their marriage, porn addiction and misuse of public funds. In the lawsuit filed by Gigaba, MultiChoice is cited as the first respondent, with Goat Originals, which produced the show, as the second respondent, and Mngoma the third. In court papers quoted by the Sunday World, the former finance minister is reported to have said that he became aware of the Untied episode when he received a WhatsApp message from its executive producer, Vanessa Tloubatla, in May. Gigaba stated that Tloubatla had indicated that she had recently interviewed Mngoma, who had mentioned his name on the show, and wanted to offer him a right of reply. 'In terms of the attached document, Vanessa [Tloubatla] indicated that the third respondent, shared her experience of our former marriage, particularly her own perspective about our marriage, allegations of infidelity, pornography, the incident involving the Hawks, and further allegations about the use of taxpayer's money for personal trips,' Gigaba is quoted as saying. ALSO READ: 'It's important for women to have these conversations': Sonia opens up about marriage to Matthew Booth Gigaba requests for copy of Mngoma episode In June, Gigaba's lawyers reportedly wrote to Tloubatla requesting a copy of the episode so he could listen to the specific allegations made against him. Gigaba said the production company's lawyers sent him a letter stating the specific allegations Mngoma made in the show. 'In light of the aforesaid, the second respondent makes the following unfounded allegations with respect to my private life: that I was engaged in multiple extramarital affairs during the subsistence of our marriage; I was addicted to pornography; and further that I was involved in her arrest,' Gigaba stated in the court papers. A few days later, on 10 June, Gigaba's lawyers wrote a letter to the production company's representatives, stating that Goat Originals' letter did not address the specific allegations made against him. In light of that, this rendered him unable to respond appropriately. 'On 12th June 2025, my attorneys advised that the second respondent's attorneys provided us with snippets of the interview for the purpose of watching [it],' he said. Gigaba said that after watching the snippets, he advised his legal team of his desire to interdict the broadcasting of the interview, on the basis that it would tarnish his name and not be in the public interest. Some of the allegations that Mngoma makes in the interview are that Gigaba's infidelity stems from seeing his father, a priest, cheat on his mother. '[She responded by saying] he would blame his father, because his father was a priest, he grew up looking up to his father, and his father cheated on his mother.' 'He would say 'I am going to deal with it', and he doesn't know why he is doing it,' the court papers read. NOW READ: 'We wish every day that your dad was still here': DJ Zinhle and Mörda celebrate Kairo Forbes' birthday
The Citizen
03-07-2025
- Politics
- The Citizen
Illegal land grabs prompt a rethink of the Pie Act
A piece of legislation introduced in the post-apartheid years to prevent eviction abuses is now being weaponised against property owners. There's righteous indignation about the impact of the Expropriation Act's enfeeblement of property rights in SA, but far more damaging is the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act from and Unlawful Occupation of Land (Pie) Act, initially introduced in 1998 to prevent the kind of eviction abuses so prevalent under apartheid. That same legislation has been weaponised against property owners, including the state, by making it difficult, sometimes impossible, to evict unlawful occupiers. Eviction proceedings can drag on for years and cost hundreds of thousands of rands, often leaving property owners with steep rehabilitation expenses. Many simply give up. In some instances, illegal occupiers have been in place for more than a decade with the blessing of the courts. The Joburg High Court in January 2024 refused to evict illegal occupiers in the inner-city area of Doornfontein despite evidence that the buildings were a fire hazard. The court ruled there was no imminent danger to the properties, nor was the City of Joburg able to offer the occupants alternative accommodation, as required under the Pie Act. The illegal occupiers have been in the buildings since 2001, successfully resisting eviction attempts which commenced in 2011. The above court decision came just months after a fire at the five-storey Usindiso building in Marshalltown, Joburg, killed 77 people. A few months before that, a fire broke out in the Florence Nightingale building in Hillbrow, killing two children who had been locked up in a room with no means of escape. ALSO READ: 90 families in Madibeng face imminent eviction In both these cases, criminals had hijacked the buildings and rented out rooms to some of the city's most desperate people. They are the pawns in a high-octane tussle between property owners and criminal gangs who have learned to game the Pie Act, often egged on by political agitators keen to grab attention whenever the cameras are around. Property associations have for years criticised the Pie Act for its perverse consequences, saying it protects criminals who sell other people's land and makes evictions extremely difficult, if not impossible. Municipalities struggling to provide basic water and lights can simply not contend with the demands of the Pie Act by providing alternative accommodation to illegal occupiers. The City of Joburg suspended its obligations to provide temporary emergency accommodation to illegal occupiers during the Covid lockdowns. It has just 11 temporary emergency accommodation facilities, all of which are full, with a need for a further 1 500 beds. It will take years and massive budget allocations, which the city does not have, just to provide these extra beds. ALSO READ: 'Illegal occupation': Standerton residents turn to ConCourt to stop evictions Tygerberg Raceway story A recent documentary, The Tygerberg Raceway story, explains how criminals took advantage of the Covid shutdowns to incite a mass land invasion of the Tygerberg Raceway, knowing that the police were overstretched and the courts were in lockdown. Just this year, police and correctional officers were caught selling other people's land in Fort Jackson near East London at R50 000 a plot. Farmers across the country have had to beef up security to prevent fallow land turning into an overnight settlement. All of this comes at a cost which is difficult to quantify. The better-run municipalities have security units dedicated to snuffing out illegal shack developments the moment they appear. A delay of a day or two allows the occupants to invoke tenant rights under the Pie Act. Then you are in for a drawn-out court battle at a considerable cost, with no guarantee of a successful eviction. Moneyweb previously reported on SA's best-run municipality, Midvaal, which has outsourced the patrolling of its municipal areas to the Red Ants. Criminals have attempted to infiltrate and occupy land, but these attempts have been successfully defended. Other municipalities with sufficient resources have been forced to adopt similar defensive measures. ALSO READ: Mogale landowners push council to use its eviction by-law against land invasions An amendment on its way? The Democratic Alliance (DA) has proposed an amendment to the Pie Act that would criminalise the incitement and organisation of unlawful occupations, even where no payment is received or solicited. This will combat instances where land grabs are orchestrated to further political agendas. Under the proposed amendments, courts will be required to consider the financial means of the illegal occupiers. They must specify the duration for which alternative accommodation or land must be provided in line with available resources. This, says the DA, will end municipalities' indefinite obligation to provide alternative housing. It should also expedite the eviction process. The Referendum Party in the Western Cape has taken a different approach to the same problem by proposing a Provincial Prevention of Illegal Evictions Bill, restricted to the Western Cape, which will draw a clear legal distinction between persons who took up residence legally and those who did so illegally. 'It would allow local and provincial government and private landowners to remove persons from their property where those persons have not at any point had permission or the legal authority to occupy that land,' says the party's website. ALSO READ: Eviction looms for long-time Emalahleni informal settlement residents Constitutional rights The courts have extended Constitutional rights not to be arbitrarily evicted from your lawful home to include those who have no such legal rights to your property. This proposed bill would clarify the definition of a home as a structure occupied by someone with the landowner's permission. If not, the illegal occupier can be removed without a court order and without the municipality having to provide alternative accommodation. The Department of Human Settlements appears to support some of the DA's proposed reforms and has committed to a full review of the existing act with a view to a department-led amendment bill by March 2026. If it succeeds, that would be a milestone in restoring at least some property rights in SA. Comments Greg Vermaak of law firm VMW Inc, which deals with numerous cases of illegal occupation: 'Pie is largely procedural, so an amendment to the act is unlikely to have much impact. If I'm a landowner and people grab land belonging to me, the state allows this to happen because there's nowhere to rehouse the illegal occupants, and that's a conscious decision. I now believe it's deliberate. It's a usurpation of land which the state could but won't fix.' This article was republished from Moneyweb. Read the original here.
