High court allows illegal occupiers to stay
The High Court in Johannesburg last week rejected an application for the eviction of illegal occupants in two formerly commercial buildings in Doornfontein, Johannesburg, saying there does not appear to be any imminent danger to the properties and the City of Joburg is unable to offer them temporary emergency accommodation.
The property owners argued that there was an imminent danger to the buildings and the occupants from fire and referenced two recent fires in other unlawfully occupied buildings in the city to buttress their case.
“That a fire occurred elsewhere is insufficient to satisfy the test of imminent danger or harm,” reads the judgment. “A fire could occur anywhere in the city.”
There was no evidence of imminent danger other than “the normal disintegration and crumbling of a building neglected over time and subjected to inappropriate use,” said the ruling by Judge Shanaaz Mia.
The case was brought by two property-owning companies, White Wall Trading and Opal Wall Trading.
There were 40 respondents, including the illegal occupiers, the City of Joburg, Joburg’s municipal manager and the national department of human settlements.
The unlawful occupiers brought a counter-application, requesting the City of Joburg to provide them with accommodation in terms of the national housing code. The illegal occupiers say they have been in the building since 2001. The building owners first brought an application to evict the occupiers in 2011 and that case is still ongoing.
The latest eviction application by the building owners was based on urgency in light of the two fires in the Joburg CBD last year that resulted in several people losing their lives.
Last week’s ruling provides some interesting background to the case, including that the City of Joburg conducted a raid on the premises in 2017 and declared it unsuitable for occupation.
The building owners obtained access to the building only after the intervention of the Socio-Economic Rights Institute, which has defended the rights of illegal occupiers around the country.
The owners discovered debris, piles of accumulated dirt and informal electrical connections – which are potential fire hazards.
The occupiers claim in their court papers that they are not paying rent to a slumlord and say they are doing what they can to maintain the building.
An architectural engineer’s report found unsafe electrical connections, insufficient water supply and a poorly maintained sewage system with leaks.
The report recommends removing fire hazards such as debris and flammable material used for partitioning and installing fire suppression equipment as well as a second fire escape.
The judge found that the occupiers would be homeless if evicted, and the 324 “households” comprising the occupiers included a large number of women, children and unemployed. VMW Inc, the lawyers acting for the building owners, say they will likely appeal the ruling.
A fire could occur anywhere in the city