Concerned farmers and the broader Douglas community plan to approach the High Court in Kimberley with an urgent application aimed at compelling the Northern Cape provincial government to address the deteriorating condition of the roads between Hopetown and Douglas and Daniëlskuil.
By Charné Kemp
The Douglas community has formed a committee and appointed an attorney to try to prevent the further deterioration of critical road infrastructure in the region. Heavily loaded ore trucks are cited as one of the primary causes of the damage.
The community plans to seek a mandamus, a court order that would legally oblige the government to fulfil its constitutional duties, according to a memorandum that Japie van Zyl Attorneys sent to members on 9 December 2025.
The situation is described as no longer a mere inconvenience, but a “constitutional crisis” that is placing lives at risk.
The affidavits being prepared for the court case paint a bleak picture of the provincial routes, specifically the R325, R380, R385, R370, R357 and R31123. These roads are characterised by deep potholes, severe erosion and collapsed road shoulders.
The memorandum argues that heavy mining trucks and abnormal vehicles, which use these routes as short cuts, have dramatically worsened the damage.
“The poor condition of the roads is catastrophic for ambulances, police and emergency services that cannot reach scenes in time, and school bus services and ordinary motorists can no longer use these routes with confidence in their safety.”
Call for a Court-Supervised Repair Plan
The Douglas community intends to ask the court for a structural interdict instructing the MEC to submit a comprehensive repair plan with timelines, compile a budget and appoint contractors, and provide regular progress reports to the court until the roads have been repaired.
If the state continues to fail to act, the applicants want to request a mechanism that would allow farmers to carry out emergency repairs themselves and recover the costs from the state.
Also read: Critical Douglas–Hopetown link road now ‘practically unusable’
Legal Costs
Affected communities will have to contribute to funding the application in the interest of their economic survival and safety.
The legal costs of the application are estimated to be at least R350 000, a figure that is likely to increase if the department opposes it.
The Authorities Ignored Repeated Warnings
According to the legal team, the Northern Cape premier, the MEC for Roads and Public Works and SANRAL have repeatedly been warned about the dangerous conditions, but letters have been ignored and PAIA requests have been “unlawfully refused”.
The memorandum states that the Northern Cape agricultural community is experiencing an infrastructure crisis that threatens public safety, economic livelihoods and essential services.
“The province is failing to fulfil its legal obligations despite years of repeated warnings. The intended legal application is necessary, legally well founded, supported by an existing precedent, and aimed at securing a sustainable, court-supervised solution.
“The government has been aware of the crisis for years, and yet no meaningful maintenance has been carried out.”
Also read: From our editor: Our farmers deliver every year; can government do the same?
Precedent Set by Eastern Cape Court Ruling
The intended application also relies on the legal precedent set in the case of Agri Eastern Cape vs the Eastern Cape MEC for Roads and Public Works, in which judgement was delivered on 10 March 2020.
The case arose from a long-standing dispute over the dire condition of farm roads in the Eastern Cape. The applicants had previously obtained a successful order against the department, after which the department appealed. On 16 May 2018, just before the appeal was due to be heard, the parties settled the matter.
The settlement agreement stipulated that the department would make R15 million available for urgent repair work; negotiate with National Treasury for long-term solutions; and report to the High Court within six months on progress made.
Agri Eastern Cape later approached the court again because the department allegedly failed to comply with the agreement. Their request was that the settlement agreement be made a formal court order so that it could be enforced.
The department opposed the application on the grounds that it had already completed more than R10 million worth of work; that judicial oversight was “unnecessary” as meetings were taking place; and that such an order would violate the constitutional principle of the separation of powers.
Judge Nomathamsanqa Beshe ruled in favour of Agri Eastern Cape. The court confirmed that Rule 41(4) allows a party to apply for a settlement to be made an order of court if it is not complied with. An agreement can be converted into an enforceable order that brings finality.
The court rejected the department’s argument regarding the separation of powers. The judge ruled that the court was not imposing new obligations on the state, but merely holding the department to what it had voluntarily agreed to.
The court found that the department was “unprepared” to comply with the agreement, particularly in relation to reporting to the court. A structural interdict, which allows the court to supervise implementation, was therefore justified to ensure accountability, concrete action and transparency.
The court ordered that the settlement agreement be made an order of court. Furthermore, the department was required, within 30 days, to file an affidavit detailing all maintenance work completed, planned future maintenance, and progress with negotiations for funding.
Also read: Farmers need good roads
