Johannesburg High Court Rules Against Eviction of Illegal Occupants Citing Lack of Imminent Danger

The Johannesburg High Court has recently delivered a verdict that has significant implications for property rights and the responsibilities of urban municipalities in South Africa. In a ruling made last week, the court denied the eviction of illegal occupants residing in two buildings in Doornfontein, a decision embedded in the nuances of social justice and legal interpretation. The court, presided by Judge Shanaaz Mia, rejected the plea by the property-owning companies, White Wall Trading and Opal Wall Trading, who sought an urgent eviction citing fire safety concerns.

The argument by the building owners was rooted in the fear of potential fire incidents, akin to recent tragedies in other unlawfully occupied buildings within Johannesburg's central business district. Nevertheless, the judge declared that the occurrence of fires in other locations did not substantiate the claim of imminent danger that could justify the eviction of the contested buildings' residents.

In an extensively deliberated judgement, Judge Mia dissected the evidence—or the notable lack thereof—regarding the immediate risk to the buildings' structural integrity and to the occupants' safety. The judge emphasized that the only risks presented were those typical of buildings suffering the toll of neglect and misuse over an extended period.

However, the court’s ruling goes beyond just the physical state of the buildings. It enters the arena of socio-economic rights and the city's obligations to its inhabitants. The City of Johannesburg, cited as a respondent in the case, had previously deemed the premises inappropriate for habitation following a 2017 inspection. Yet, the city's incapacity to provide temporary emergency accommodation to the illegal occupants sat at the heart of the court's stance.

Facing a lack of viable housing solutions, the illegal occupants, enduring since 2001, had lodged a counter-application asking for the City of Johannesburg to afford them accommodation as per the National Housing Code. The case throws into sharp relief the complexities faced by municipalities like Johannesburg in reconciling the property rights with their duties to vulnerable populations under the National Housing Code and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act).

Delving further into the situation, the judge took into account the “hardship balance” prescribed by the PIE Act. It was observed that the eviction would lead to homelessness for the 324 households, including many women and children, an outcome far more severe compared to the alleged hardships faced by the property owners.

An architectural engineer’s evaluation further complicated the owners' case by revealing electrical, water supply, and sewage deficiencies that, while not posing immediate threats, did require prompt attention, including the removal of fire hazards and installation of fire safety equipment.

VMW Inc, representing the building owners, has indicated its intention to appeal, signalling a continuing legal struggle over the issue. Urban property and human settlements have long been contentious arenas with landowners, legal systems, and government bodies grappling over the challenging concerns sparked by urbanization and housing crises in major cities like Johannesburg.

In the darkness of such disputes, a critical conversation emerges—one that questions the legal frameworks, the responsibilities of municipal governance, and the human face of urban housing crises. As this case continues to develop, it serves as a stark reminder of the intricacies and human impact of property law and its enforcement.