In a lawsuit filed in the High Court of Joburg, the owners of two squatted buildings in Berea claim their ownership has been “sterilized” due to inaction by the City of Joburg (CoJ). .
According to court documents, the two properties were illegally occupied by a number of tenants who stopped paying rent between 2018 and 2020, amounting to a rent boycott. The latest lawsuit follows a failed attempt to evict the squatters, who said in an affidavit in court that this would leave them homeless. insisted.
advertisement
Continue reading below
read:
Joburg High Court rules squatters can 'stay'
Property owner files suit against CoJ over illegal occupation
Property ownership companies are calling on the City of Joburg and other state departments dealing with squatting to be held accountable under constitutional and other legislation dealing with property rights and emergency response to evictees.
The reasons for the initial rent boycott are vague, but it appears to be more opportunistic than substantive, starting with one building and spreading to a second building over three years. Although the tenants appeared to be diligently paying their rent up until the time of the boycott, court affidavits suggest that many are now in dire straits.
The property owners tried for several years to evict the occupants and regain control of the building, but to no avail.
The City of Joburg is required to assess the personal circumstances of squatters and assess whether they qualify for Temporary Emergency Accommodation (TEA). The court will request this information as part of the eviction report before considering whether to evict you.
The city produced an eviction report in 2021, but it lacked enough detail for a court to make a proper assessment, and it also lacked temporary emergency accommodation for squatters, most of whom are foreign nationals. It is also clear from the court's reply that there was no facility. Nation.
The city's failure to plan temporary emergency accommodation for the squatters is unconstitutional and invalid, the suit's applicants argue. As such, the CoJ is accused of violating the constitutional rights of property owners.
The Ministry of Justice also failed to submit a constitutionally compliant eviction report as required by the court, and failed to cooperate with the Ministry of Interior to resolve the situation of unidentified foreigners living rent-free in the building. He has also been accused of.
The lawsuit, filed by property owners 22 Fricker Road and Snowy Owl Properties 149, alleges that the Department of Justice's method of implementing TEA policy is unconstitutional and invalid.
Respondents include the City of Joburg, the Joburg City Administrator, the Gauteng and National Human Settlements Department, the Department of Home Affairs, and the illegal occupiers of the two properties.
The property owners have asked the court for a structural injunction (meaning the court will monitor compliance with the order) to compel the city, Gauteng and the Department of Home Affairs to fulfill their obligations under the constitution, housing law and immigration law. There is.
During the course of the litigation between the property owner on the one hand and the city and illegal occupiers on the other, it was discovered that several discrepancies existed, including the number and identity of the occupiers.
advertisement
Continue reading below
“Of course, the designated occupiers at the same time rejoice in the state's incompetence. [eviction] “To either continue living in the property rent-free, or collect their own 'rent' from the illegal subtenant, as they have done for years,'' Andrew Schaefer said on behalf of the property owner. Ta.
This incident is fraught with delays, miscommunication, and missed objectives.
In May 2023, the court will order the DHA and the CoJt to carry out a survey of the property and produce a report on its findings, particularly who among the illegal occupiers is eligible for temporary emergency accommodation. I ordered. The DHA appeared on the scene and advised that it could not conduct an inspection without police presence, although this is not required by law.
Schaefer's affidavit states that “DHA clearly lacks understanding of its legislative mandate,” and that the department is purely concerned with involving “other stakeholders” in DHA matters. He seemed satisfied.
The CoJ's response to the court indicates that 1,500 beds are needed to meet TEA requirements, and it has identified six additional properties for acquisition, with an additional This indicates that it could take up to three years.
The court proceedings also revealed that the city's existing TEA facility, intended to house evictees for up to six months, was permanently occupied. This also meant that he needed to obtain TEA facilities.
Article 26(3) of the Constitution provides that no person may be evicted from his or her home without a court order, taking into account all relevant circumstances. Schaefer acknowledged that there are situations in which property owners must be patient when enforcing their property rights. Still, property owners “cannot be expected to provide free housing indefinitely to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless.”
CoJ's failure to cooperate with DHA caused the city to waive its obligation to provide emergency accommodation in hopes that DHA would deport the illegal aliens, allowing the situation to drag on for years.
Squatters have little incentive to provide accurate information to the city, given the threat it poses to their ability to live rent-free.
