An almost two-decade dispute between the City of Cape Town and the Makhasa informal settlement has finally concluded, with the City losing.
According to Legal Aid Western Cape, the City of Cape Town has been forced to go back to the negotiating table with the residents of Makhasa after the Western Cape High Court found in favour of the 36 households with which it had a relocation dispute.
“The dispute has been ongoing for nearly 19 years, with the City of Cape Town being accused of using threats, bullying and intimidation tactics to scare the residents into ending up homeless and destitute, rather than provide them with suitable land for their homes,” said Legal Aid spokesperson Boitumelo Boshupeng.
Most recently, in 2021, the City began the first phase of servicing a plot of land nearby Makhasa informal settlement and thereafter instructed the 36 households to relocate with their old shacks to the newly serviced plot.
Boshupeng said that upon arrival at the new plot, the residents learnt that the City was now relocating other residents from other informal settlements to the serviced plot.
“The City then instructed the 36 Makhasa households to again pack up their shacks and relocate to an unsuitable and unserviced plot of land (which other informal settlers were moved from because of its unsuitable nature) and reassured them that they would form part of the second phase of relocations.
“The Makhasa residents refused to relocate and raised queries with the municipality as to why they were not considered as part of the first phase and whether the municipality would be providing new materials for them to erect suitable shacks. Instead of continuing discussions with the 36 households, the municipality proceeded with legal action and obtained an unlawful interdict against the community members,” he said.
Nompumelelo Dyantyi, one member of the 36 households in this matter, enlisted the assistance of the Legal Aid SA Athlone Local Office as the interdict filed against them effectively restricted access to the newly serviced plots, and also accused them of assaulting City officials and contractors and destruction of municipal property.
Legal Aid SA lawyer Charlotte Makua represented the 36 households and argued in the Western Cape High Court that the evidence provided to the court was hearsay since none of the City officials and contractors participated in the legal proceedings.
“Additional arguments also touched on the urgency of the application since the interdict was granted in 2021 but was never enforced. The High Court agreed that the interdict was unlawful and the City of Cape Town was ordered to engage with the 36 households to find a suitable arrangement.
“The City of Cape Town attempted to circumvent the legal process for eviction by bringing an interdict, which meant they would not need to provide alternative accommodation, as in the case of an eviction proceeding. We are pleased that the affected residents will not suffer from mass destitution,” she said.
Dyantyi said she was happy with the outcome of the case, and said the community felt vindicated by the finding that the correct way to deal with this dispute was around the negotiation table and not in court.
“I am glad that we will not live in fear of eviction since City officials constantly threatened us and some residents even left the area due to that intimidation. We hope to be relocated to a serviced and suitable plot of land and not be offered a hazardous location to live,” she said.
The City has said that it was not aware of the court action being 19 years: “The PIE application has been issued for the respondents to be moved and to make way for the works and completion of the project that will see the improvement of the living conditions of the residents in question.”
Legal Aid responded by saying: “We state that the dispute between the informal settlement and City was ongoing since 2002. Part of the dispute was that the City was mandated to formalise their settlement and provide each household with municipal services (water, electricity, etc.), which had not happened prior to 2021. That is what our media release refers to as a ‘nearly 19-year dispute’, not a court case. Our application to the High Court in August 2022 focused or related to the unlawful interdict the City obtained in 2021.”