Residents occupying property belonging to the Transnet company in Cape Town, where tunnels used for storing narcotics and stolen goods were discovered, lost their attempt to overturn the eviction order.
The High Court of the Western Cape denied approximately 281 residents permission to appeal the eviction order concerning Transnet properties in the Woolstock and Salt River areas. The court was presented with evidence of extensive crime in the area, including crime statistics, concentration of criminal activity around these properties, and site inspection results.
During the inspection, a 'series of tunnels under the occupied properties, which were allegedly used for storing narcotics and stolen goods' was found. Judge Wille ruled that the evidence presented confirmed the conclusion that this occupation functioned as a base for criminal activity.
Inability to Prove
The residents argued that the City of Cape Town should have proven that specific individuals living on these properties committed certain crimes. However, Wille noted that this was not a criminal trial; the question was whether the collected evidence allowed the conclusion that the occupation served as a base for criminal activity, and whether this related to the decision on the fairness and justification of the eviction.
The judge took into account crime statistics, proximity of criminal activity, the presence of tunnels and other structures on the occupied territories, as well as the inspection results. The court established that the residents relied on general denials and failed to provide evidence supporting an alternative explanation.
Substantial Evidence
Wille stated that the Municipality presented 'detailed, irrefutable evidence that the property served as a base for a criminal enterprise.' He added that 'tunnels under the property, used for storing narcotics and stolen goods, were discovered during the site inspection.'
The residents also contested the eviction on the grounds that they were not provided with emergency housing. Nevertheless, Wille indicated that alternative accommodation, while important, is not an absolute prerequisite before granting an eviction order. The court ruling states: 'I recall that homelessness is a very relevant consideration, and therefore I recognized that alternative housing is an important factor. None of the affidavits submitted by the residents claimed that the eviction would render any of them homeless. It can be inferred, but it was never stated.'
Although about 281 people were represented, only 106 additional affidavits were submitted after the court requested further information. Some of these contradicted the information provided by the residents' representative, whose affidavit contained rumors about the living conditions of several residents.
Obligation
The judge wrote that 'undoubtedly, the residents themselves were obliged to present their personal circumstances to the court, as this information is exclusively within their control. The court gave the residents a specific opportunity to present this information.' The residents also argued that the Municipality had land and resources available to provide emergency housing.
Wille clarified that the issue was not whether land could hypothetically be found anywhere in Cape Town, but whether suitable land was available under the circumstances of the case. In Wille's view, the residents failed to demonstrate realistic chances of success or another compelling reason for appeal. Their application for leave to appeal was dismissed without an order for legal costs.