Transnet National Ports Authority (TNPA) stated that the High Court of Western Cape's ruling in its favor regarding the eviction of illegal residents from its premises in the Kuilemborg area, between Cape Town Port and Woodstock, should contribute to the current and future development related to the port.
This judgment was made last week, and the court ordered that all residents must vacate the premises by September 30th. According to available information, 161 people reside on this territory, most of whom are undocumented foreign nationals.
According to Ward Councillor Ian McMahon, residents of Woodstock and Salt River have long associated this area with frequent reports of robberies, assaults on cyclists and motorists, cable theft, and vandalism. McMahon noted that the presence of these residents negatively affected neighboring areas, businesses, and passengers.
In response to the court ruling, TNPA emphasized that the disputed properties are part of TNPA's strategic land assets necessary to fulfill its legislative mandate. This mandate includes both current and future activities related to the port, as well as the long-term development of strategic freight transport infrastructure. TNPA assured that the eviction process would be conducted legally, safely, and with due respect for the dignity of all affected individuals.
The organization also reported that it will cooperate with the sheriff and other relevant authorities during the process. The restoration of these strategically located assets is viewed as an important step towards ensuring the future development of the port and logistics, enhancing safety, and supporting the long-term efficiency and competitiveness of the Cape Town Port and the broader South African economy.
Last week, TNPA announced the release of a request for proposals to appoint a terminal operator for the reconstruction and operation of one of its multi-purpose terminals at Cape Town Port under a 25-year concession. This initiative is part of TNPA's ongoing efforts to modernize and develop port infrastructure, supported by Transnet's Reinvent for Growth strategy. This strategy aims to increase operational performance, expand capacity, and attract the private sector to improve the competitiveness of South Africa's logistics network.
In response to the housing and resident placement issue, housing rights activist Ndifuna Ukwazi stated his intention to challenge the court's decision. The City of Cape Town, which was one of the respondents in the case, was not designated to provide housing or accommodation because the land did not belong to the city. Ndifuna Ukwazi's center reported that it is examining its options, which may include an appeal. Ward Councillor Mayco for Safety and Security, JP Smith, commented on the situation, noting that it is not city-owned land, and that the property owner is best suited to comment on the decision and next steps.
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.
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.
