About 281 people living on Transnet land in Cape Town have lost their bid to challenge an order evicting them. The Western Cape High Court refused them leave to appeal.
The properties are in Woodstock and Salt River. The court heard that tunnels under the occupied land were allegedly used to store drugs and stolen goods.
Judge Wille said the City of Cape Town had presented “detailed, uncontroverted evidence showing that the property served as a base for criminal enterprise”.
He added that “tunnels under the property used to store drugs and stolen goods were discovered during the inspection in loco”.
The court was given crime statistics and evidence of how much crime was centred around the properties. It also had the findings of a site inspection.
The judge found that this evidence supported the view that the occupation was being used as a base for crime.
The occupiers argued that the City had to prove that specific people on the land had committed specific crimes. Wille said this was not a criminal trial.
He said the question was whether all the evidence, taken together, showed the occupation was a base for crime. The court also had to decide if that mattered in judging whether the eviction was just and fair.
According to the court, the occupiers relied on general denials. They did not give evidence to support a different explanation.
The occupiers also said they had not been offered emergency housing. Wille said other accommodation was important, but it was not an absolute condition before an eviction could be granted.
“I was mindful that homelessness is a very relevant consideration and thereby accepted that alternative accommodation is an important consideration. Not one of the affidavits filed by the occupiers in terms stated that an eviction would render any of them homeless. It may be argued that this was inferred, but it was never stated,” the judgement reads.
The court had ordered the occupiers to give more information about their lives. Although about 281 people were represented, only 106 more affidavits were handed in.
Some of these did not match what the occupiers’ spokesman had said. The judge found the spokesman’s own affidavit contained hearsay about the situation of several occupiers.
“Undoubtedly, the occupiers themselves were obligated to place their personal circumstances before the court, as this information lies peculiarly within their knowledge. The court afforded the occupiers a specific opportunity to place that information before it,” the judge wrote.
The occupiers further argued that the City had land and money available to provide emergency housing.
Wille said the real question was not whether land could be found somewhere in Cape Town in theory. It was whether suitable land was actually available in this case.
The judge found the occupiers had not shown a realistic chance of winning an appeal, or any other strong reason for one. Their application for leave to appeal was refused, with no order as to costs.
Source: this article is based on reporting by iol.co.za. Image: iol.co.za. Written with the help of AI and published by the Tzaneen Voice News desk. See our Editorial Standards.
Kgomotso Maake covers news and politics for Tzaneen Voice. Kgomotso reports on government, Parliament, municipalities, courts, crime and service delivery across South Africa, with a close eye on how national decisions reach towns like Tzaneen and the wider Limpopo province. Stories are written in plain English and focus on the facts: who made the decision, what it means, and what happens next.