Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) welcomed the decision of the Western Cape High Court, which orders 161 people to vacate property belonging to TNPA in the Kuilemborg area. TNPA believes that the return of these lands will serve as a foundation for the future development of port and freight logistics systems.
These sites are located between the Port of Cape Town and Woodstock and are part of TNPA's strategic land assets. The court ruled that the affected residents must leave these premises by September 30, 2026. Failure to comply with this deadline may result in eviction by a High Court sheriff, supported by the South African Police, if necessary.
TNPA confirmed that the court ruled in favor of Transnet and issued an order concerning the illegal occupation of its property. In a statement, TNPA emphasized that the court recognized these sites as part of TNPA's strategic land assets, essential for fulfilling its legislative mandate, including current and future port-related activities, as well as the long-term development of strategic freight logistics infrastructure.
The authority stated that it respects the court's decision and will follow the legal and administrative procedures related to enforcing the order within the stipulated timeframe. TNPA clarified that the eviction process will be conducted legally and safely, taking into account the dignity of the affected individuals. During the process, TNPA commits to continuing cooperation with the sheriff and other relevant authorities.
TNPA noted that the recovery of these strategically located sites is an important step toward ensuring the future development of the port and logistics sector. Furthermore, it will improve safety and security, supporting the long-term efficiency, competitiveness, and growth of the Port of Cape Town and the broader South African economy.
Meanwhile, the City of Cape Town stated that it has no formal role in carrying out the evictions. The City stressed that the ruling clearly indicates the absence of the City's formal role in implementing this decision. The City also rejected the notion that the court found its existing emergency accommodation zones to be fully occupied. The City noted that the court determined that the proposal for providing emergency housing in this case was not fair, and further searching for land for this purpose is no longer required.
However, the City reported that any person in Cape Town who is homeless can voluntarily apply to its 'Safe Space' programs for assistance. The court ruling referenced numerous criminal incidents near these sites, including robberies, assaults on drivers, and over 100 attacks on cyclists. The City expects that relocating the residents will reduce the number of crimes committed against road users and continues to support the presence of law enforcement in this area and across the metropolis.
In response to questions about damaged infrastructure, the City stated that it will repair its own infrastructure and expects other state bodies, including Transnet, to do the same. Nevertheless, the housing rights organization Ndifuna Ukwazi expressed concern over the decision and the City's refusal to provide emergency housing for those who might become homeless. The organization criticized the conclusion that the occupied land was used as a base for crime, arguing that poor and homeless people were generally accused of criminal activity in the area without individual evidence against them.
Ndifuna Ukwazi also challenged the court's stance regarding undocumented foreigners, insisting that they may be entitled to emergency accommodation under certain circumstances, depending on conditions set by the Department of Home Affairs. Ndifuna Ukwazi lawyer Inga Dyanti noted that it is alarming when people living in areas labeled as crime hotspots can be viewed as criminals simply because of where they live. She added that this is particularly difficult to accept given that the nature of spatial apartheid means that most Black people in the country originate from or currently live in high-crime areas and informal settlements. Dyanti concluded that it should not be allowed for everyone to be arbitrarily deemed a criminal undeserving of basic constitutional protection.
Residents of the Woodstock and Salt River areas are celebrating the decision by the Western Cape High Court, which ruled that 161 people who illegally occupied land belonging to Transnet and located near the N1 highway in Kuilemburg must vacate the area by September 30th.
Following this ruling, residents are now awaiting authorities to provide emergency housing for the affected individuals. The Woodstock Ratepayers' Association (WRA) urgently approached Transnet as the applicant, the City of Cape Town as the respondent, and the Department of Home Affairs to clarify the conditions for the occupants' placement.
The court hearing took place on Tuesday, when the court ordered that all residents must vacate the premises. This land is situated near the N1 motorway, providing daily access to Cape Town for many drivers. The court also authorized the sheriff to carry out the eviction according to the order, involving the police if necessary.
WRA noted that the eviction was sanctioned without the provision of alternative housing, leaving the occupants homeless if they cannot find their own accommodation before September 30th. However, WRA explained that this approach was justified by budget constraints for emergency housing, as well as the link between the occupation and criminal activity and the fact that many of them are undocumented foreign nationals.
Transnet, which had promised feedback, has not yet responded. According to Ward Councillor Ian McMahon, residents of Woodstock and Salt River have faced frequent reports of robberies, attacks on cyclists and motorists, cable theft, and vandalism in this area for years. McMahon stated that the presence of occupants negatively affected neighboring areas, businesses, and commuters.
He clarified that although Transnet acted as the landowner, the City of Cape Town was named as the respondent because, under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act (PIE Act), the court must consider the City's constitutional obligations in case of an eviction. The process became more complicated when the Department of Home Affairs became involved, as issues of immigration status for a significant number of occupants became part of the matters under consideration by the court.
McMahon mentioned that the initial application concerned about 282 occupants. However, as the legal proceedings developed, updated surveys, individual affidavits, and changing circumstances led the court to ultimately rule on 161 occupants, many of whom were recognized by the court as undocumented foreign nationals.
He added that the situation began affecting communities as robberies and attacks on cyclists and motorists increased. McMahon reported speaking with numerous residents who no longer felt safe in parts of the area, business owners concerned about safety and investment, and members of the cycling community who changed their daily routes due to constant attacks along this corridor. He emphasized that no one should rejoice at the prospect of losing their home.
During the process, McMahon interacted with residents, businesses, cycling community members, U-Watch Neighbourhood Watch, Woodstock Improvement District, SAPS, law enforcement agencies, Metro Police, and city officials. He noted that the court took into account extensive evidence, including detailed affidavits, site inspections, and the personal circumstances of the occupants before making its decision. Importantly, he said the court found that this occupation was closely linked to persistent criminal activity, and the circumstances were fundamentally different from those of a typical informal settlement created mainly for shelter or economic opportunity.
The court also deemed it the responsibility of both the City and the Department of Home Affairs before concluding that it would not be fair or impartial to require the City to provide emergency housing under these circumstances. JP Smith, a Mayco member for safety and security, stated that the situation placed a burden on the municipality. He stressed that the prolonged illegal occupation and associated antisocial and criminal behavior had damaged surrounding communities and road users, and reminded that this was not City land, but the property owner was best suited to comment on the decision and next steps.
U-Watch Woodstock stated that the impact of the occupation affected not only residents but also businesses. They called it 'the biggest positive step in the last decade,' marking a turning point for Woodstock, leaving crime and dirt behind for a safer, cleaner, and more prosperous future. The Department of Home Affairs did not provide a response by the deadline set for Wednesday.
The High Court of the Western Cape has ruled that 161 people must vacate illegally occupied land belonging to Transnet in the Woodstock and Salt River areas by September 30, 2026.
The court found that the land was used as a base for spontaneous criminal activity. In its ruling, delivered on Tuesday, July 21, Judge Derek Wille granted Transnet's application for eviction and ordered the occupants to leave the premises by the specified date.
Should this order not be complied with, the Sheriff of the High Court has the authority to carry out the eviction, seize property, and dismantle illegally erected structures. If necessary, the Sheriff may receive support from the South African Police Service.
Initially, the case involved 282 people occupying at least 10 plots of Transnet land for over ten years. However, the final statement concerned 161 people, many of whom were described in the ruling as undocumented foreign nationals.
The sites are located in Woodstock and Salt River, near the N1 highway and three business districts. Transnet informed the court that it requires these territories for its commercial operations and future development.
The City of Cape Town objected to the requirement for emergency housing, arguing that the illegal occupation had created a basis for criminal activity. According to statistics presented to the court, 74 cases of common robbery, 20 armed robberies (non-firearm), seven firearm robberies, and one vehicle theft were recorded near these sites over an eight-month period.
The City's highway management system also recorded videos of cable thefts, robberies, and car break-ins on the busy N1 stretch, where traffic congestion slows movement near the occupied areas. In December 2025 and January 2026, law enforcement responded to seven incidents where vehicles were attacked with bricks and damaged.
In one instance, a pair of disabled individuals were attacked and robbed; their car windows were damaged, and a mobile phone was stolen. Police statistics showed that between January and June 2025, 44 arrests were made in the immediate vicinity. These arrests were related to charges including drug trafficking, drug possession, illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, dangerous weapon possession, intimidation, copper wire theft, assault, robbery, illegal vehicle possession, resistance to arrest, and assault on a police officer.
More than 100 attacks on cyclists were also registered near the sites between September 2024 and May 2025. These included 74 common robberies, 20 armed robberies (non-firearm), and seven firearm robberies. In one incident, an elderly cyclist was attacked and robbed with a bottle, sustaining fractures and multiple injuries, and subsequently died.
In another case, a witness who was an advisor observed an attempted robbery when a person allegedly jumped in front of a van to stop the driver. Subsequently, a group of 20–30 people armed with knives surrounded the vehicle, threw bricks under the wheels, and took the car keys. Another driver was robbed by four people after losing control of the vehicle and colliding with a bridge barrier.
Judge Wille concluded that the occupants failed to convincingly refute the detailed allegations of criminal activity, largely offering only general denials. The judge considered it the most probable assumption that the sites were used as a base for crime, especially since only illegal occupants resided there.
During the inspection of the sites, the court discovered cut cables, damaged streetlights, open manholes, informal structures near the N1, and free access to the highway. Ditches were dug near the MyCiTi bus lane, and informal structures were also close to commercial property and within an area designated as a crime hotspot. One occupied plot could not be inspected because law enforcement could not guarantee the safety of participants.
A dilapidated building near the bridge, where stripped cables were stored, was also identified and recognized as one of the areas associated with attacks on cyclists. Extensive damage to the protective fencing was noted.
The occupants argued that eviction could not be fair and equitable without the provision of emergency housing if it would lead to homelessness. Wille noted that alternative accommodation is an important factor in eviction processes but is not an automatic or absolute requirement in every case.
The City informed the court that its emergency accommodation zones were fully occupied, and national funding for emergency housing was severely limited. The proposal to use vacant Transnet land for emergency housing was rejected. Wille felt that relocating the occupants to other Transnet property would allow them to bypass the housing queue ahead of people who followed legal procedures.
Furthermore, the ruling stated that the occupants failed to provide detailed information about their personal circumstances, despite being given the opportunity to disclose information about their families, employment, children, health status, and legal status. Wille found that the City provided a reasonable explanation for its inability to provide alternative housing and ruled that the eviction was fair and equitable under the circumstances.
