While a resident of the troubled Clarendon Heights in Hillbrow recently debunked the narrative of a “hijacked building”, other owners and trustees pointed to judicial findings of serious violence and intimidation associated with takeover dynamics by certain elements associated with the building.

The Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, earlier ordered the eviction of about 38 occupiers. They subsequently failed in their bid to obtain leave to appeal against that judgment but indicated that they will now petition the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in a bid to appeal the eviction order.

While a pending appeal usually suspends an order, Judge Leonie Windell in December handed them a lifeline. She agreed to suspend the eviction order for now. This is because of the uncertainty of where the residents will go if they are evicted within 48 hours and the risk of potential homelessness.

She acknowledged exceptional circumstances and ongoing harm to the body corporate and the city, but said there was insufficient evidence on the occupiers’ vulnerability, household composition, or the availability of temporary emergency accommodation.

The judge, however, ordered that interim interdicts regulating occupation, access, utilities, security, and management of the building shall remain in force pending final determination of the appeal or further order of the court.

Last year the body corporate and the City of Joburg instituted urgent proceedings in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), alleging that the building had been taken over and managed without the authority of the body corporate.

A resident subsequently voiced his opinion that from inside the building, what is described as “hijacking” does not resemble an unlawful takeover by residents. Instead, he said, it reflects a complex breakdown of governance that has unfolded gradually and largely out of public view.

But other concerned residents and trustees, who opt to remain anonymous for safer reasons, meanwhile in reply pointed out that the court expressed concern about the abuse of the PIE Act by a criminal element in inner-city “building hijacking” contexts and emphasised the need to protect the rule of law.

They remarked that the court accepted evidence (unchallenged in key respects) of organised interference with building governance and access, including preventing owners/agents/contractors from entering. The collection of rent by unauthorised persons, and continued defiance of interdictory orders were also concerns raised.

“The court recorded serious violence and intimidation associated with the takeover dynamics, including contractors and service providers being attacked (with life threatening injuries), threats, and a caretaker being shot and nearly killed,” they said.

The group pointed out that these are not rhetorical assertions by them; they are judicial findings and recorded evidence in the judgment itself.

They further pointed to the fact that the leave to appeal application was dismissed, although the petition for leave to appeal to the SCA remains pending.

While a resident debunked the notion of the building being hijacked, the other concerned owners and trustees said the court record reflects a materially different and broader reality which includes unlawful control by some over parts of the building, and an environment where violence and intimidation were reported in sworn papers and addressed through court orders.

“We remain committed to lawful process, dignity, and safety for all residents. We continue to encourage any affected occupants to engage constructively and peacefully within the legal framework,” the trustees said.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za

Source link