Residents who have been illegally occupying a building in Cape Town’s inner-city will have their day in court with the Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI) over their bid to evict them.

On Tuesday, the Western Cape High Court is set to hear the case where DPWI is seeking to evict residents from Reclaim the City’s “Irene Grootboom House”, formerly known as 104 Darling Street.

The property is believed to be among the 338 buildings that are owned by the department, which are believed to have been hijacked and/or illegally occupied.

The DPWI sees the Darling Street address consisting of two properties: a dilapidated three-storey building and vacant land adjoining it, which it says “has become vulnerable to unlawful land grabs or land invasions”.

The department is seeking an urgent notice as an interim eviction, with the assistance of the Sheriff of the Court and the police, and notices on boards would be displayed to inform the occupants that their personal belongings would be removed.

Housing law group, Ndifuna Ukwazi, representing the residents, will argue that the department’s application, launched shortly after a tender process for the property closed, is an abuse of court processes based on a “self-created urgency” and must be dismissed.

The group argued that the department has constantly failed to conduct routine inspections and relies on an ‘Option Analysis and Valuation’ report from 2013.

Ndifuna Ukwazi [NU] attorney, Ruth Stein, said: “They allowed this building to decay for over a decade, tacitly permitting occupation. Now, after a tender for private office space has closed, they demand that the Court issue an urgent eviction, citing safety concerns, with no regard to the alternative accommodation of the families living there.

“This is not about safety; it is about clearing the property for a commercial award.”

NU said the DPWI’s claim of structural urgency in the current case is further undermined by its own actions.

A report from structural engineers NU indicated that interim measures could be taken to address the primary safety concern— one specific problematic wall that is outside of the main building.

“The respondents attempted to engage the DPWI on these interim measures but received no response prior to the court filing deadlines: The wall in question has remained standing for the five months since the matter was first set down in April, demonstrating a clear lack of genuine urgency.

“Furthermore, the DPWI has failed to provide any feasible alternative emergency accommodation that meets the residents’ needs. Available space in social housing is nonexistent, and there is no private land available for housing kits,” they said.

NU said the only option presented is placement in shelters, which is unsuitable for numerous reasons:

• Separation of Families: Shelters often separate men, women, and children, forcing parents to be parted from their minor children.
• Employment Conflicts: Restrictive entry and exit times at shelters are incompatible with residents’ work schedules, jeopardising their livelihoods.
• Safety and Belongings: Residents fear their personal items will be stolen and are unwilling to abandon their household goods, which cannot be stored in a shelter.
• Temporary Nature: Shelters are not a permanent solution, leaving families with no clarity on where they will go next.

They further argued that questions also remain over whether Haven Night Shelter, the proposed facility, has sufficient space to accommodate all affected individuals.

“Should residents be evicted and relocated to homeless shelters or into homelessness, that would constitute a regression of the right to housing – where the state has taken steps to diminish rather than advance the constitutionally enshrined right to access adequate housing – a violation of our constitution.

“The respondents will argue that the DPWI’s application, marked by a failure to engage, a neglect of its own property, and a disregard for providing lawful alternatives, constitutes a self-created emergency designed to expedite a commercial process at the expense of vulnerable residents,” they said.

DPWI Minister Dean Macpherson was contacted for comment, but has yet to respond. However, on Friday, the High Court authorised eviction notices for foreign nationals living in tents on state-owned land in Cape Town.

Macpherson, following the ruling in the case, said they are relentlessly pursuing their agenda to reclaim state assets and repurpose them for the public good.

“The rule of law will be enforced. No person has the legal right to unlawfully occupy state land or to claim public buildings and land as their own. It is our responsibility to return these properties to their intended purpose so they can contribute to the upliftment of our communities.”

theolin.tembo@inl.co.za

Source link