A third party never owned the land - Molapo Crossing boss
Mpho Mokwape | Friday February 26, 2016 16:59
They say government officials lied to them that no further entrances were possible because the land they would have to use was owned by a private third party. Sphinx Associates (PTY) Ltd has papers indicating that the Department of Lands and other authorities subsequently confirmed that the land belonged to government itself.
Sphinx Associates in their legal suit against government, said they were urged to seek approval by means of petition to the then Minister of Transport and Communications, which they subsequently prepared and submitted on July 2, 2009. In his founding papers before court, which the State did not defend by filing its own papers, the Molapo Crossing boss accused the Department of Roads authorised officer of giving him false information regarding the petition when they already knew the land ownership.
“The petition was not required and the reasons given to me for the need to submit a petition were false. In fact before approving the equivalent quality entrances, the authorised officer had already checked the ownership of the said land,” he said in his affidavit.
Vandecasteele revealed that he had wanted to be given a way-leave letter by the Department of Roads after his approval for the construction of the entrances but it took six months until he was told that he needed further approval from the Minister of Transport, as the entrances were to be built over a third party’s land.
He explained that the land had always belonged to the government and that the officers knew that prior to asking him for a petition. The Department of Lands confirmed that the land did not belong to a third party but in fact government, a fact also confirmed by the then Ministry of Transport Permanent Secretary.
Sphinx Associates argued that the refusal to issue a way-leave letter even after admitting that the land belonged to the government confirmed that Roads willfully delayed and frustrated their efforts and that their continued refusal qualified as a wrongful and unlawful act. On other issues, they stated the Department of Roads instructed the main contractor to construct a temporary road on their land without having first sought approval from them, alleging that they did not know where he was, yet he was at their offices almost every day in pursuit of the way leave letter.
The papers read: “The temporary road was part of the Department of Roads planned programme and was to be used during the entire construction period. The temporary road was on my land where I had submitted plans for further developments thereof to the Department of Town and Regional Planning. The construction of the temporary road disrupted my activities and effectively stopped deliveries of goods to Molapo Crossing. I had to seek immediate termination of the said road works. Upon his complaint, the constructors stopped all construction, the temporary road had to be re-designed and the land was never restored to its original condition but nothing was done and no apologies rendered despite destroying the proper access to the centre. Furthermore, he explained that he had to construct a completely new road to ensure continued access noting that it had to be done as a matter of urgency as the Department of Roads continued with the works without halting them to at least give him time to construct the required access road.
“As a result thereof, I was forced to design and build the new road in a matter of days to mitigate its damages. Again the Department of Roads did not apologise, let alone assist with the design or construction of the access road; they need to compensate me,” his affidavit states.