Nongoma foreign shop owners seek High Court protection

Ask AI 2minNkosikhona Ndabandaba has been cited as the first respondent in an urgent Pietermaritzburg High Court application by 22 Nongoma business owners over shop lockouts.

Foreign national business owners in Nongoma, in northern KwaZulu-Natal, have approached the Pietermaritzburg High Court to stop trespassing into their business premises and to have possession of their shops restored.

The application, filed on November 6, lists 22 applicant businesses, including Farooq Blitz Trading, Ali71999 Cell and Sound, Nongoma Tasty Shawarma, Nadeep Hussain Shah trading as Halal Fried Chicken, Nu Jabulani Traders, and Supergroup of Companies.

The founding affidavit in support of the application was deposed to by Tamirat Cheba Oloro, together with confirmatory affidavits and annexures. The applicants are represented by Lister and Lister Attorneys.

The first respondent cited is cultural activist, traditional leader, actor, and anti-illegal immigration campaigner Nkosikhona “Phakel’umthakathi” Ndabandaba, also referred to in the papers as Andries Nkosikhona Ndabandaba, .

Other respondents cited include Pelele Thami Zungu, Phumlani Khumalo, Cebo Mnguni, Tenten Nxumalo, Bono Ntethwa, Duduzane Zulu, Mncedisi Nxumalo, and the Insizwa Nobunsizwa Development Foundation.

Others are the Acting Minister of Police, the National Commissioner of Police, the KwaZulu-Natal Police Commissioner, the Nongoma Station Commissioner, and the Sheriff of the High Court in Nongoma.

In the notice of motion, the applicants ask the court for interim orders with immediate effect, including that:

The first to ninth respondents restore possession of the business premises to the applicants, removing all locks, chains, shields or other obstructions preventing the applicants from accessing and entering the premises, so they can resume trading;

The first to ninth respondents be interdicted and restrained from encouraging or participating in unlawful activities at the applicants’ business premises in Nongoma, and along roads at or near the premises;

The respondents be stopped from entering and trespassing on the premises, gathering at the premises, and directly or indirectly threatening, intimidating, harming, instructing, coaxing or persuading others to threaten, intimidate or assault the applicants’ employees at or near the premises.

The papers further ask that if the first to ninth respondents fail to comply, the SAPS respondents be authorised and directed to take all reasonable steps to enforce the orders and prevent further illegal activities, including deploying police from another part of South Africa to assist in the execution of the orders, and to assist the sheriff to give effect to the orders.

In the alternative, the applicants ask to be authorised to deploy a third-party security agency to take reasonable steps to enforce the order relating to removal of locks and obstructions, and to prevent further illegal activities.

The applicants also seek costs against any respondents who oppose the application, jointly and severally.