Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes

Last updated

Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and Another, Amici Curiae) [1] is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court [2] on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10.

Contents

Facts

Joe Slovo informal settlement, situated alongside the N2 highway in Cape Town, [3] on land owned by the City of Cape Town, was first occupied in the 1990s. It was rife with fire hazards, and its conditions were unsanitary. [4] Although initially it had no running water, and no toilets or roads or electricity, the municipality began over time to provide some basic services, including water, container toilets and rudimentary cleaning. After a devastating fire in 2000, [5] and after some "pressure, negotiations or demands," [6] the City had, in terms of its constitutional and legislative obligations, made further provision for "substantial services of a permanent nature," [7] including tap water, toilets, refuse removal, the lay-out of streets, drainage, connection to the electricity grid and house numbers. [8] These basic municipal services were carried out in "an ongoing, long-term fashion." [9] The residents had lived there for a long time, some for as long as fifteen years. Apparently the question was never raised, during the fifteen years of the settlement's existence, of their right to occupy; [10] there was certainly no evidence of the City's ever having tried to remove them.

Under the state's Breaking New Ground (BNG) policy, aimed at the elimination of informal settlements in South Africa, Joe Slovo was targeted for upgrade and redevelopment, "no doubt because of the deplorable and inhuman conditions under which the people live." [11] The Gateway Housing Project (as it was called) required that the residents be moved. During 2006 and 2007 "considerable effort" was undertaken to persuade them to relocate to Delft, [12] that Thubelisha Homes might proceed with the development of the second phase of the project. This effort failed because, having been promised rents of between R150 and R300 per month, the price actually turned out, according to the occupants, to range from R600 to R1,050. [13] At some point during their subsequent occupation, each of the residents was a dealt a "red card" by the City, indicating that the holder had applied for housing with the municipality. [14]

The respondents brought a High-Court application seeking the residents' eviction in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), [15] [16] on the grounds that the property was required for the development. The residents, for their part, argued that they were not unlawful occupiers: They had obtained the necessary consent of the City of Cape Town to occupy the land, [17] [18] and hence were not "unlawful occupiers" as defined in the Act. [19] They should not, therefore, be evicted. The appellants also depended on the provision of the red cards—these, they argued, entitled them to remain in undisturbed possession of their houses [20] —and on the fact that reconstruction work had been done by the City after the fire, [21] as well as on the supply of basic services, which ostensibly indicated the City's consent. [22]

Nomaindia Mfeketo, the previous mayor of Cape Town, denied in her testimony that consent had been given to occupy. She argued that the services had been provided for "basic humanitarian reasons." [23] They must not be construed as consent on the part of the City; nor, Mfeketo contended, did they grant the residents any enforceable right to remain in the area. It had always been intended that informal settlements in general would be upgraded or moved or redeveloped, in conformity with the state's constitutional imperative to provide access to adequate housing on a progressive basis. [24]

Issues

The High Court ultimately granted the eviction order, and the residents applied for leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court, where, when it was granted, they raised the following issues:

  1. whether or not the applicants were unlawful occupiers in terms of PIE and, if not, whether their occupation was lawfully terminated;
  2. whether section 5 or 6 of the Act was applicable;
  3. whether the technical requirements of PIE had been complied with;
  4. whether the relocation of the applicants was just and equitable;
  5. whether the applicants had a substantive and legitimate expectation in relation to the allocation of housing opportunities in the Joe Slovo settlement to them, and whether this expectation had been or could be fulfilled;
  6. whether the eviction was in all the circumstances reasonable; and
  7. the nature of the appropriate and just and equitable relief.

Two key legal decisions arose for decision. The first was whether or not the respondents had made out a case for eviction in terms of PIE. Key to this question was whether or not, at the time of the launch of eviction proceedings, the applicants were "unlawful occupiers" within the meaning of the Act, and whether or not it was just and equitable to issue an eviction order.

PIE defines an unlawful occupier as

a person who occupies land without the express or tacit consent of the owner or person in charge, or without any other right in law to occupy such land, excluding a person who is an occupier in terms of the Extension of Security of Tenure Act, 1997, and excluding a person whose informal right to land, but for the provisions of this Act, would be protected by the provisions of the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 1996. [25]

The question hinged, therefore, on whether or not the municipality had consented to the occupation. If there had been consent, and the right to occupy had not been terminated, the respondents would not have been entitled to a relocation order. Once there is a right to eject, however,—and this is so only if there is no municipal consent to occupy—the provisions of PIE become applicable as a matter of protection to the person or persons liable to eviction.

The second question was whether the respondents had acted reasonably, within the meaning of the Constitution, [26] in seeking the applicants' eviction.

Judgment

The Constitutional Court held that the provision of basic services was legitimate evidence of the City's state of mind. Clearly it was appreciated that the residents were a reality and would have to be accepted and provided for in a humane manner for a considerable period of time, until access to adequate housing could be realised. The provision of basic services, taken together with several other factors, had to lead to the irresistible inference that the City had tacitly given its permission for the occupation. [27]

The court found, however, that the invocation of PIE procedures on the public breakdown of the process between the residents and the State served in itself as a final statement that the occupation of the Joe Slovo settlement had been rendered unlawful. [28] Provided that the order for the eviction and relocation made appropriate provision for the safe and dignified and humane relocation of everyone involved, the eviction and relocation would be in accordance with justice and equity, as required by PIE. [29] The order should therefore be coupled with a further order guaranteeing that the applicants should be allocated the specified proportion of the new houses to be built on the site of Joe Slovo within a process of meaningful engagement with the people. [30] The appeal was thus allowed in part, but the eviction was permitted to go ahead.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign</span>

The Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign was a non-racial popular movement made up of poor and oppressed communities in Cape Town, South Africa. It was formed in November 2000 with the aim of fighting evictions, water cut-offs and poor health services, obtaining free electricity, securing decent housing, and opposing police brutality.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Joe Slovo, Cape Town</span> Place in Western Cape, South Africa

Joe Slovo is an informal settlement in Langa, Cape Town. Like many other informal settlements, it was named after former housing minister and anti-Apartheid activist, Joe Slovo. With over 20,000 residents, Joe Slovo is one of the largest informal settlements in South Africa.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Delft, Western Cape</span> Township on the Cape Flats in Cape Town

Delft is a township on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa. It is situated next to the Cape Town International Airport, Belhar, Blue Downs, Ikwezi Park, Mandalay,Luzuko, Phillipi East and Site C, Khayelitsha. It is known for its recreational events, youth empowerment organizations such as Enkosi Foundation and the community has establish a motherbody organisation, the Delft Community Development Forum. Delft is a community that consists of numerous government built housing projects such as the N2 Gateway. In 2022 Delft was the fastest growing community in Cape Town.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Symphony Way Pavement Dwellers</span>

Symphony Way Informal Settlement was a small community of pavement dwellers that lived on Symphony Way, a main road in Delft, South Africa, from February 2008 until late 2009. They were a group of families that were evicted in February 2008 from the N2 Gateway Houses.

The N2 Gateway Housing Pilot Project is a large housebuilding project under construction in Cape Town, South Africa. It has been labelled by the national government's former Housing Minister Lindiwe Sisulu as "the biggest housing project ever undertaken by any Government." Even though it is a joint endeavour by the National Department of Housing, the provincial government of the Western Cape and the City of Cape Town, a private company, Thubelisha, has been outsourced to find contractors, manage, and implement the entire project. Thubelisha estimates that some 25,000 units will be constructed, about 70% of which will be allocated to shack-dwellers, and 30% to backyard dwellers on the municipal housing waiting lists. Delft, 40 km outside of Cape Town, is the main site of the Project.

The N2 Gateway Occupations saw large numbers of government-built houses occupied illegally by local residents of Delft in the Western Cape during December, 2007. The houses in question were the new Breaking New Ground (BNG) houses in the Symphony section of Delft near the main road Symphony Way. This was the largest occupation of houses in South Africa's history.

Frank Martin is a former Democratic Alliance councillor for the 19th Ward in Cape Town which includes Blue Downs, Kuilsriver, Wesbank and a small eastern section of Delft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007</span> South African provinial law

The KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act, 2007 was a provincial law dealing with land tenure and evictions in the province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa.

Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers [2004] ZACC 7 decided by the Constitutional Court in 2004, is an important case in South African law, with significance especially for post-apartheid property rights and constitutional supremacy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">South African property law</span> Important aspects of redistribution agreement

South African property law regulates the "rights of people in or over certain objects or things." It is concerned, in other words, with a person's ability to undertake certain actions with certain kinds of objects in accordance with South African law. Among the formal functions of South African property law is the harmonisation of individual interests in property, the guarantee and protection of individual rights with respect to property, and the control of proprietary management relationships between persons, as well as their rights and obligations. The protective clause for property rights in the Constitution of South Africa stipulates those proprietary relationships which qualify for constitutional protection. The most important social function of property law in South Africa is to manage the competing interests of those who acquire property rights and interests. In recent times, restrictions on the use of and trade in private property have been on the rise.

Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on May 23, 2002, with judgment handed down on August 30.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998</span>

The Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) is an act of the Parliament of South Africa which came into effect on 5 June, 1998, and which sets out to prevent arbitrary evictions.

Blue Moonlight Properties 039 (Pty) Ltd v Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue and Another, an important case in South African property law, was heard in the Witwatersrand Local Division by Judge Thokozile Masipa on 30 May 2008, with judgment handed down on 12 September.

<i>Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom</i> South African legal case

Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.

Theart and Another v Minnaar NO; Senekal v Winskor 174 (Pty) Ltd is an important case in South African property law and civil procedure, as well as in the area of legal interpretation. It was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal on November 5, 2009, with judgment handed down on December 3. Mpati P, Brand JA, Snyders JA, Malan JA and Bosielo JA presided. Counsel for the appellants was BC Wharton; CHJ Maree appeared for the respondent in case No. 483/08 and M. Verster for the respondent in case No. 007/09. These were appeals from two decisions in the High Court, Cape Town. The appellants' attorneys were RP Totos, Cape Town, and Symington & De Kok, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 483/08 were Van der Spuy & Vennote, Cape Town, and Phatshoane Henney Ing, Bloemfontein. The respondent's attorneys in case No. 007/09 were JC Van der Berg Attorneys, George, and Hill, McHardy & Herbst Ing, Bloemfontein.

In 2009, the Anti-Land Invasion Unit was created by the City of Cape Town in an effort to stop people from illegally attempting to occupy land. In 2011 the City stated that the unit demolished about 300 shacks each month. The Anti-Land Invasions Unit is the biggest unit in the City's law enforcement operation.

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others is an important case in South African law, in particular in the area of civil procedure, with its determination that the execution of immovable property is subject to judicial oversight.

On 27 April 2013, the national public holiday of Freedom Day in South Africa which some grassroots social movements have termed UnFreedom Day, members of Abahlali baseMjondolo occupied a piece of land in Philippi, Cape Town. They named the occupation Marikana after the Marikana miners' strike. The occupation was repeatedly destroyed by the city's anti-land invasion unit. According to the Daily Maverick the occupiers were evicted on six separate occasions. Two months after the eviction 90 people were still sleeping on the site under a tent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Squatting in the Philippines</span> Occupation of derelict land or abandoned buildings

Squatting in the Philippines occurs when people build makeshift houses called "barong-barong"; urban areas such as Metro Manila, Metro Cebu, and Metro Davao have large informal settlements. The Philippine Statistics Authority has defined a squatter, or alternatively "informal dwellers", as "One who settles on the land of another without title or right or without the owner's consent whether in urban or rural areas". Squatting is criminalized by the Urban Development and Housing Act of 1992, also known as the Lina Law. There have been various attempts to regularize squatter settlements, such as the Zonal Improvement Program and the Community Mortgage Program. In 2018, the Philippine Statistics Authority estimated that out of the country's population of about 106 million, 4.5 million were homeless.

Land invasion in South Africa is seen as the illegal occupation of land with the intention of erecting dwellings or establishing a settlement on it and is an issue that is affecting various municipalities in South Africa especially in the face of increased urbanisation in bigger metropolitans like The City of Cape Town, eThekwini Metropolitan Municipality and the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality.

References

Books

Cases

Statutes

Notes

  1. ↑ 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC).
  2. ↑ Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J.
  3. ↑ Para 126.
  4. ↑ Para 24.
  5. ↑ Para 21.
  6. ↑ Para 22.
  7. ↑ Para 151.
  8. ↑ Paras 21, 151.
  9. ↑ Para 151.
  10. ↑ Para 22.
  11. ↑ Para 25.
  12. ↑ Para 31.
  13. ↑ Para 32.
  14. ↑ Para 35.
  15. ↑ Act 19 of 1998.
  16. ↑ s 6.
  17. ↑ s 6(1)(a).
  18. ↑ In terms of s 1(ii), consent may be "express or tacit [...] in writing or otherwise."
  19. ↑ s 1.
  20. ↑ Para 40.
  21. ↑ Para 43.
  22. ↑ Para 38.
  23. ↑ Quoted at para 40.
  24. ↑ s 26(1).
  25. ↑ s 1(xi).
  26. ↑ s 26.
  27. ↑ Paras 155-156, 180, 280, 358.
  28. ↑ Paras 84, 160, 180, 290, 394.
  29. ↑ s 6(3).
  30. ↑ Paras 114, 175, 260-261, 313, 326, 409.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.