Page 87 - Litigating Land and Housing in South Africa: Lessons and Reflections

8 1
8 1
1
1
1
POMONA CASE STUDY: THE PRINCIPLE OF “JUST AND EQUITABLE” IN IN IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS
Case information
In Pomona Kempton Park Johannesburg Gauteng the LRC has represented a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a group of of occupiers that comprised approximately 300 households They They occupy a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a portion of of land land which which is is is zoned as as as as agricultural land land and and and is is is owned by Miradel Streets Investment Company They They They initially had had a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a lease agreement with the the the the the owner which which was terminated in in in in in in 2008 Some of of of them had had been living on on on the the the the the the site since 1993 They They occupied the the the the the the informal structures structures (shacks) that they constructed The The The structures structures are are made of of of poles and and and and corrugated iron sheets Most of of of the the the the the the occupiers are are unemployed and and and and make a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a living living as as waste pickers They collect recyclable materials gathered from refuse and and and and landfill sites which they sell for a a a a a living living Around 2007 the the the the owner instituted the the the the first application for eviction against them in in in in the the the the the the the Gauteng High Court and in in in in in in in terms of of the the the the the the the PIE Act With the the the the the the the assistance of of the the the the the the the LRC the the the the the the occupiers raised a a a a a a point in in in in in in limine arguing that they could only be evicted in in in in in terms of ESTA They further argued that the the the Gauteng High Court did not have juris- diction diction to to entertain the the the the matter as section 17 of ESTA states that unless the the the the the the parties agree to to the the the the the the jurisdiction of the the the the the the high court court the the the the the the court court does not have the the the the the the jurisdic- tion tion to interpret ESTA As a a a a result the the the the owner withdrew this application The second eviction application was instituted against the the the occupiers in in in in 2014 at at at the the the Land Claims Court (LCC) in in in terms of of of ESTA The basis of of of the the the the the application was that the the the owner had terminated the the the occupiers’ rights of of of residence in terms of of section 8(1) of of ESTA and and as as a a a a a a a a result it it was was just and and equitable for the the LCC to grant an an an an eviction order against the the the the occupiers The LRC was was in- structed to oppose the the the the the the application With the the the the the the assistance of of the the the the the the LRC the the the the the the occupiers disputed that the the the the the the owner had complied with the the the the the requirements of of of sections 8(1) and 8(4) of of ESTA They further argued that it it it was not just and equitable for the the the the LCC to evict them since they did not have alternative accommodation The matter was heard in in in September 2016 by by Acting Judge Judge Barnes After hearing arguments by by both parties and and prior to to making an an an order the the Judge Judge postponed the the the the matter and and issued directives for for parties to to make representations before the the the court on: (1) the the the Role of Municipality and Provincial Government in in large scale
8 EXTENSION OF OF OF SECURITY OF OF OF TENURE ACT 62 OF OF 1997
LITIGATING LAND AND AND AND HOUSING IN IN IN SOUTH AFRICA  LESSONS AND AND AND REFLECTIONS
87