eviction application - state buyout of land - City of Cape Town - Western Cape High Court
This is an eviction application arising from Fischer v Ramahlele, an application to restrain residents entering and being on erf 150 (“the interdict application”). In the interdict application, SERI intervened on behalf of the shackdwellers’ movement Abahlali baseMjondolo in an appeal involving the unlawful eviction of occupiers of a piece of privately-owned land in Philippi, Cape Town.
Iris Arrilda Fischer, the landowner, subsequently instituted an application for the eviction of the occupiers from her land in terms of section 4 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 1998 (“the PIE Act”). SERI represents all of the residents on the land. The number of residents on the property and on neighbouring properties has grown over the years, resulting in the ad hoc establishment of an informal settlement known as “Marikana”. The City of Cape Town ("the City") estimates that there are over 60 000 people living on the Marikana settlement.
On 25 January 2016, Fischer amended her notice of motion seeking, in the alternative to the eviction of the residents, a two part relief:
Fischer’s application was heard in February 2017, together with two other identical applications brought by owners of neighbouring properties, which also form part of the Marikana settlement. SERI argued that the only reasonable option that could be pursued in order to avoid making the Marikana residents homeless was for the state to purchase or expropriation the land. SERI further submitted that section 9(3) of the Housing Act 107 of 1997 provides the appropriate legal framework within which to manage the purchase or expropriation of the Marikana land, and that the City’s failure to initiate the process required by section 9(3) is unreasonable and unconstitutional. Judgement was reserved.
On 30 August 2017, the Western Cape High Court dismissed the application to evict the 60 000 people living in the settlement. The Court found that the City had infringed the constitutional property rights of the owners of the Marikana land, and had also breached the housing rights of the Marikana residents by its unreasonable failure to do anything to secure the tenure of the Marikana residents. The Court directed the City to initiate the process provided for in terms of section 9(3) of the Housing Act, by entering into good faith negotiations to purchase the Marikana land, and expropriating the land in the event that purchase negotiations failed.