CASE 7902: KEITH BROAD'S ATTEMTS TO LEGITMISE ILLEGAL EVICTIONS AND THEFT

This chapter details Case 7902/22, a pivotal legal matter that, if heard, would have exposed the fabricated claims, procedural abuses, and legal distortions that have defined this campaign. The case was not just another civil dispute—it was the opportunity to bring Keith Broad, his associates, and his network of influence within SAPS and other institutions under formal judicial scrutiny.

 

The core of the case was a request for oral evidence, a fundamental legal process that would have required witnesses, including Keith Broad, to testify under oath and be cross-examined on record. This step was not merely procedural—it was the only means to break through the barrage of false affidavits, contradictions, and outright perjury that had been submitted as evidence against me.

​

Yet rather than face such scrutiny, Keith Broad delayed, obstructed, and ultimately maneuverer to ensure that this case was never heard. The hearing was originally scheduled for mid-2022, but in a highly strategic move, Broad had it postponed—clearing the way for his “cheaper, faster, and illegal” alternative: using the criminal justice system as a weapon to forcefully evict me under the pretence of fabricated charges..

​

 

The Purpose Of This Legal Application

 

The application sought:

 

• A postponement to allow for oral evidence to be heard, ensuring that the critical disputes of fact were resolved in court through live testimony, rather than relying on written affidavits where falsehoods could be easily submitted without scrutiny.

• The right to submit additional evidence, as the facts of the case had evolved and new material had emerged that directly contradicted Broad’s claims.

• A ruling on procedural abuses, including misrepresentations in prior affidavits and repeated misconduct in the legal process.

• A formal dismissal of Broad’s claims with costs, on the grounds that his arguments were legally baseless and factually dishonest.

​

 

Why Oral Evidence Was Essential

 

This case was never one of clear-cut legal arguments—it was a case of conflicting claims, where one side was lying, and the other had evidence to prove it. The standard legal process of affidavit-based litigation was inadequate to resolve the key issues because:

​

• Keith Broad’s affidavits contained blatant contradictions, which could only be exposed through cross-examination.

• Key witnesses, including SAPS (South African Police Service) officers involved in the unlawful eviction attempts, would have been forced to testify, likely revealing the depth of corruption and collusion.

• A full evidentiary record would have been established, preventing Keith Broad from shifting his narrative from one affidavit to the next as was his usual practice.

 

​

The Postponement That Paved The Way For Criminal Abuse

 

Instead of allowing the case to proceed, Keith Broad ensured that the hearing was pushed back by several months. This was not a delay out of necessity—it was a calculated move. During this delay, Keith Broad shifted from legal means to illegal ones:

He manufactured criminal charges to achieve what the courts were not allowing him to do.

​

SAPS (South African Police Service) officers under his influence executed unlawful arrests, ensuring I was taken out of circulation before the hearing could expose the truth.

 

Fabricated claims about “fraudulent activity” was inserted into legal proceedings to justify false arrests and the illegal eviction campaign.

 

​

What This Case Proved—Even Without A Hearing

 

While the hearing itself was obstructed, the very fact that Keith Broad worked so aggressively to prevent it is evidence in itself. If his claims were legitimate, he would have had every reason to proceed with the hearing and have his version upheld in a trial. Instead, he did everything possible to avoid scrutiny.

 

The legal application highlighted Keith Broad’s direct role in engineering the circumstances he later cited as justification for eviction:

 

• His own refusals to allow proper legal processes to play out were the reason the dispute remained unresolved.

• He manufactured crisis points—including through SAPS (South African Police Service) intervention—to create legal pretexts for urgent action.

• He deliberately sabotaged the standard legal process to justify the use of force, perjury, and illegal evictions..

​

 

Conclusion: The Hearing That Should Have Ended The Lies

 

Had Case 7902/22 been heard, the cycle of false claims, unlawful arrests, and orchestrated legal manipulation would have been brought to an end. Keith Broad’s refusal to allow this case to proceed confirms that he knew his version of events would not hold up under judicial scrutiny.

 

This chapter lays bare the abuse of the civil and criminal justice system, detailing how a legal case meant to resolve a dispute through proper channels was intentionally delayed and derailed in favour of illegal and coercive methods.