The Durban High Court issued a strong reprimand earlier this week after legal documents concerning a property dispute were served on a minor child at her school in North Beach.

The dispute is between the child’s mother and an individual claiming ownership of a property in Sherwood.

The court did not hold back, stating that the practice was “bound to cause embarrassment and distress” and unnecessarily involve a child in litigation to which she was not a part.

Sithembile Benedicto Ngubane brought an application to the High Court against Jabulile Shandu, the mother, and the eThekwini Municipality.

Ngubane, who was dismissed with costs by KwaZulu-Natal Judge Mokgere Masipa, sought a final interdict to evict Shandu and her daughter from a Sherwood property acquired by Ngubane in January 2025.

Shandu claimed she moved into the property in 2007 while in a relationship with Mbongiseni Mlambo, the son of the previous owner, Joyce Mlambo. She asserted that they were married under customary law, had a daughter in 2008, and she helped pay the ‘rent-to-buy’.

According to Shandu, Joyce made payments to Habitat for Humanity. Shandu further claimed that Joyce agreed the property would belong to her and Mbongiseni once payments were complete.

However, Ngubane disputed this, stating the rent-to-buy agreement was solely between Joyce and Habitat for Humanity, and Shandu was not a party to it.

Habitat for Humanity even listed Shandu as an ‘illegal tenant’. Ngubane further claimed that Shandu no longer resided in the property and stated that her belongings were in it.

The court did not hold back, stating that the practice was “bound to cause embarrassment and distress” and unnecessarily involve a child in litigation to which she was not a part.

The relationship between Shandu and Mbongiseni later deteriorated, leading him to move out while she stayed with their child. In February 2017, the property was officially transferred to Joyce.

In December 2017, Joyce and her late husband initiated eviction proceedings against Shandu in the Magistrate’s Court, but these did not continue. In June 2023, Joyce filed another application under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), to which Shandu responded with a lis pendens defence (lawsuit currently ongoing regarding property). This matter also remained unresolved.

Judge Masipa identified fundamental flaws in Ngubane’s legal approach, ruling that Ngubane was duty-bound to comply with PIE and her failure to do so rendered the application without a lawful foundation. 

The judge noted that PIE requires specific procedures for evicting people from their homes, which Ngubane had attempted to bypass.

“The applicant elected to sidestep PIE and to proceed by way of motion, despite clear and foreseeable disputes of fact that go to the heart of the matter. That approach was misguided,” Judge Masipa stated.

The strongest criticism was reserved for the improper service of legal documents. Judge Masipa highlighted that instead of serving papers directly on Shandu or at her residential address, the sheriff improperly served them on Shandu’s minor child at her school. 

“This not only goes against the Uniform Rules of Court but also harms the dignity and best interests of the child, which the court is required to protect under Section 28(2) of the Constitution,” the Judge emphasised.

Judge Masipa stressed that courts will not support practices that expose children to humiliation or unnecessarily draw them into litigation.

She reminded practitioners that “proper service is not an optional formality but an indispensable safeguard of fairness and dignity”.

nomonde.zondi@inl.co.za

Source link