Supreme Court of Appeal Rules Against City of Cape Town on Shack Demolitions

The relentless struggle for adequate shelter in South Africa experienced a notable judicial intervention this week as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) delivered a pivotal judgment involving the City of Cape Town and the country's marginalized shack dwellers. The court found that the demolition of shacks and the eviction of residents, as conducted by the City without formal court orders, were unlawful and unconstitutional.

The events which precipitated this legal scrutiny and subsequent ruling point back to actions taken by the City in 2020 when the Anti-Land Invasion Unit (ALIU) forcefully cleared out land occupiers, dismantling their makeshift homes, and, in startling instances, meted out dehumanizing treatment to individuals such as Bulelani Qolani.

The City of Cape Town, which had sought refuge in the legal concept of "counter-spoliation," contended that it was acting within its rights to reclaim land immediately upon its unlawful occupation - a move the appeal court robustly rejected. The higher courts affirmed that this argument doesn't stand when the peaceful possession of the makeshift shelters has been established. Such a narrow window of action, as seen appropriate for counter-spoliation, was overlooked by the City's officials in their rush to clear the lands.

In detailing its judgment, the appeal court stressed the requirement for the City to act within the boundaries of the law, particularly the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), which emphasizes court supervision, consultation, and provision of alternative accommodation for affected individuals.

This litigation, sparked by advocacy groups like the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and shack-dwellers’ movement Abahlali BaseMjondolo, has sent a clear message that the vulnerable communities cannot be overlooked, nor can their circumstances be handled with arbitrary discretion of local officials.

The SCA ruling emphasizes the need for court oversight in matters concerning eviction and demolitions, arguing that leaving such drastic actions to the rapid judgment of city officials could lead to abuse of power and further marginalization of the already vulnerable populations.

Despite the City's plea of overwhelming housing demand and a housing list that potentially spans seven decades, the court held that these aspects do not justify sidestepping the rule of law, particularly steps that ensure the dignity of the affected persons is preserved.

Furthermore, the appeal of a separate ruling was also addressed, where the SCA overturned an order for the City to compensate evicted individuals. The lack of detailed justification for the compensation rendered that part of the interim interdict impermissible.

The ruling has far-reaching implications on how municipalities deal with the ballooning issue of informal settlements and land occupation. While it underscores the urgent need for humane and legally sound solutions to South Africa's housing crisis, it also reaffirms the judiciary's role in protecting human rights against heavy-handed local governance.