housing allocation - PAJA - Winnie Mandela informal settlement - North Gauteng High Court

SERI represents 133 residents of the Winnie Mandela informal settlement, located in Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality. The residents have lived in shacks at the settlement without sufficient access to basic services since 1994. All the residents are members of the Ekurhuleni Concerned Residents Association (ECRA) and have been approved and allocated a particular state-subsidised stand, only to find other people living there when they tried to move in. As a result, the residents cannot take possession of the stands allocated to them. By fraud or negligence, those stands have been given to other people, unknown to the residents.

Even though the residents cannot move onto their stands, the municipality is sending them water and electricity bills, and charging them for municipal rates. In addition the Gauteng Department of Human Settlements (GDHS) will not provide the residents with other stands or houses, because the housing subsidy database records them as already having received a stand. The residents are accordingly marked as “inactive” on the housing subsidy database.

Despite the residents’ exhaustive efforts through ECRA to address this with the municipality and the GDHS, these requests have been ignored and the government has refused to provide a logical explanation for the misallocation of the serviced stands and housing subsidies.

In May 2015 the residents, represented by SERI, launched an application in the North Gauteng High Court pursuant to section 8(1)(a)(ii) of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000 (PAJA), to compel the municipality and the GDHS to take the necessary steps to grant the residents title to the land where they currently reside, and take necessary steps to upgrade the residents’ housing accommodation where they currently reside in terms of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP), or provide them with housing opportunities in developments that are close to Winnie Mandela.

Soon after launch of this application, the residents were invited to negotiations by the municipality and the GDHS. A memorandum of understanding was reached between the municipality, the province and the residents in terms of which the municipality would deliver a report outlining how it would provide for housing delivery to the residents. The GDHS and the municipality failed to comply with the undertakings given during the negotiations and the residents have continued with court action seeking an order enforcing those undertakings. The matter was set down for 22 May 2017.

  • Residents' heads of argument (23 December 2016) here.
  • Residents' supplimentary replying affidavit here.
  • Municipality's confirmatory affidavit (15 August 2016) here.
  • Residents' replying affidavit (4 May 2016) here.
  • Municipality's supplementary answering affidavit here.
  • Municipality and GDHS's answering affidavit here.
  • Founding affidavit here (Part 1) and here (Part 2).
  • Notion of motion (29 May 2015) here.