Category

Evictions

May 16
0

Darling Street eviction case

By | Eviction news, Evictions, hijacking

Court date set for June 19 amid ongoing legal battles

Reprinted from iol.com, by Theolin Tembo – 2025-05-14

The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure (DPWI), currently in a legal battle seeking the eviction of residents at 104-106 Darling Street in Cape Town, has defended itself against criticism that it is not following the proper legal process.

The property is believed to be among the 338 buildings that are owned by the department, which are believed to have been hijacked and/or illegally occupied.

In the DPWI’s court papers, it argues the Darling Street address consists of two properties: a dilapidated three-storey building and vacant land adjoining it, which it says “has become vulnerable to unlawful land grabs or land invasions”.

The DPWI is seeking an urgent notice as an interim eviction, with the assistance of the Sheriff of the Court and the police, and notices on boards would be displayed to inform the occupants that their personal belongings would be removed.

The matter was set for April 9, but according to Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre (NULC), which is representing the property, it did not proceed as “the state attorney for the minister had not set the matter down, later citing that they needed time to respond to the residents’ answering affidavits”.

“This shows that the minister had failed to obtain the requisite pre-authorisation to serve the urgent eviction application; failed to attach material reports, and importantly, did not make a case for the extraordinary measure of an urgent eviction that would result in residents being immediately evicted into homelessness,” NULC said.

The matter returned to the Western Cape High Court last Thursday.

“Almost a month later, DPWI has only now filed further papers and approached the court to obtain an order to belatedly authorise the service of the notice of the urgent eviction application, which it now intends to proceed with on June 19, 2025.

“NULC and some of its clients were at court prepared to bring to the court’s attention the concerning conduct of DPWI, and how the residents of Darling Street are being prejudiced.

“The parties were able to secure an order clarifying the next steps in the matter to ensure that the matter is fully ventilated on this new date,” it said.

The organisation and law centre previously said the building was home to more than 60 people who have been living there for decades.

In response, spokesperson for DPWI, Lennox Mabaso, said: “As previously stated, on April 9, 2025, the matter was postponed, as the respondents only indicated their opposition to the application on March 27. Consequently, the legal team had just eight working days to consider their response. The department has now done so and has filed its reply affidavit.

“The department has since become aware of numerous occupants on the property who were not identified during the previous occupation survey. It was, therefore, necessary to postpone the matter to serve the department’s application on those occupants and provide them with a fair opportunity to respond.”

Mabaso said the City of Cape Town also needs to be afforded time to finalise its housing report, which must include provisions for those newly identified occupants.

“The department denies the allegations relating to both the procedural and substantive merits of the application. It further denies that the court was seized with these issues at the May 8, 2025, hearing, which was solely for the purpose of obtaining direction on the continuation of proceedings,” he said.

For further information

Whoever your tenants are, whether they are known to you or not, taking reasonable steps to identify occupants, serving notices correctly, and ensuring procedural fairness are essential components of a lawful eviction. If you adhere to these principles, you will avoid costly mistakes and ensure the eviction process is carried out smoothly and justly.

Eviction lawyers SD Law can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on eviction procedure if it becomes necessary. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za. Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban working hard to help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships.

Further reading

Jan 16
0

Evicting unknown occupants

By | Evictions, PIE, Rental Housing Act

How to evict tenants when you don’t know who they are

If you own property you don’t live in, at some point you may be faced with illegal occupants – squatters. Squatters may be – and often are – known to you. Your tenants have stopped paying their rent but fail to vacate the premises. Unpleasant and inconvenient as it is, there is a defined process for evicting non-paying tenants, or occupants in breach of any other condition of the lease. But what happens when you don’t know who the occupants are? This is not as unlikely as it sounds. Perhaps you have relocated from one city to another and your former home is on the market but unsold at the time of your departure. You relocate, taking your possessions with you, and the house is unoccupied. Seeing an opportunity, squatters manage to breach your security defences and move in. Even though their occupation is unlawful, they now have certain rights and you must follow due process to reclaim your property. How do you evict unknown occupants? 

Just such a case happened in Mpumalanga, though this case involved a municipality rather than a private landlord. The case of Emakhazeni Municipality v Ngubeni provides critical guidance as to how municipalities, landlords and other property owners can handle eviction proceedings when the identities of the occupants are unknown. This decision by the Mpumalanga High Court highlights the steps that must be taken to ensure an eviction is lawful and procedurally fair, even when the people occupying the property cannot be specifically named or served with legal documents.

Case summary

The Emakhazeni Municipality sought to evict individuals who had been living on municipal land without legal rights or authorisation. Ngubeni was named as the respondent in the eviction application, while the identity of the remainder of the occupants was unclear, as there was no precise information about who else was occupying the property.

The municipality argued that the land was illegally occupied and therefore applied for an eviction order. However, the unknown identity of the other occupiers raised questions about how the eviction process could be properly served.

Court’s findings

The court recognised the municipality’s right to seek eviction of unauthorised occupants but emphasised several important considerations in ensuring the eviction was lawful and fair:

  1. Notification and service of process: One of the central issues in the case was the correct service of the eviction application on the unknown occupiers. The court ruled that, even in situations where the occupiers cannot be individually identified, the notice of eviction must still be directed to the “unknown occupants” of the property. 

This is essential to ensure the eviction process adheres to the principles of natural justice, giving anyone residing on the property an opportunity to respond. Importantly, while personal service is the ideal method for informing an occupant of eviction proceedings, the court acknowledged that, in cases involving unknown individuals, alternative forms of notice may be acceptable. This could include posting the notice on the property or other reasonable steps to alert the occupiers.

  1. Reasonable steps to identify occupants: The municipality was required to take reasonable steps to ascertain who was living on the property. This could involve physical investigation, consulting local records or using other means to identify the individuals occupying the land. Assuming the named individual (Ngubeni) was the only person occupying the land would not suffice.

The court stressed that landlords and municipalities must demonstrate they have made diligent efforts to confirm the identities of all those living on the property. In this case, failure to identify the other occupants adequately could undermine the eviction application.

  1. Fairness in the eviction process: A central theme in the judgment was the need for fairness. The court emphasised that, even if the identities of the occupiers are unknown, the eviction process must respect their constitutional right to a fair hearing. This includes giving them the opportunity to oppose the eviction or show cause why they should not be evicted, regardless of their unknown status.

The court pointed out that any eviction that proceeds without fair process could be challenged and potentially set aside, especially if it can be shown that proper procedures were not followed.

Lessons for landlords and municipalities

The Emakhazeni Municipality v Ngubeni case provides essential insights for landlords, municipalities and property owners who face the challenge of evicting unknown occupants. Key considerations include:

  • Take reasonable steps to identify occupants: Landlords should conduct a thorough investigation to determine who is occupying the property. Naming one individual in an eviction application, without confirming whether others are living there, is insufficient.
  • Service of eviction notices to unknown occupants: In cases where the identities of the occupiers are unknown, landlords or municipalities should serve notices to the “unknown occupants” of the property. This ensures that anyone residing on the land is informed about the eviction proceedings. If personal service is not possible, other forms of notification, such as posting the notice at the property or publishing it in local newspapers, are generally considered appropriate. However, landlords should be careful to follow the legal requirements closely.
  • Procedural fairness: The right to a fair hearing is a cornerstone of South African law, particularly in matters related to eviction. Even if occupiers cannot be specifically identified, they must be given a reasonable opportunity to contest the eviction. Failing to offer an adequate opportunity to respond could render the eviction process unfair and subject to legal challenge.
  • Legal advice and guidance: Given the complexities of eviction cases, especially when dealing with unknown or unidentified occupants, landlords and municipalities are strongly advised to consult with legal professionals. An attorney will ensure the eviction process follows the correct procedures, preventing delays and the risk of a void or invalid eviction order.
  • Alternative solutions: If the eviction involves vulnerable groups or occupiers who are unable to be identified, landlords should explore alternative solutions. This could include negotiating temporary relocation, offering accommodation assistance, or pursuing other legal remedies that do not immediately result in displacement. However, this may be more feasible for municipalities than for private landlords.

For further information

Whoever your tenants are, whether they are known to you or not, taking reasonable steps to identify occupants, serving notices correctly, and ensuring procedural fairness are essential components of a lawful eviction. If you adhere to these principles, you will avoid costly mistakes and ensure the eviction process is carried out smoothly and justly.

Eviction lawyers SD Law can answer your questions about rental housing rights and advise you on eviction procedure if it becomes necessary. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za. Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban working hard to help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. 

Further reading:

Nov 18
0

Eviction looms for victims of traditional leader’s land scam

By | Eviction news, Evictions

Reprinted from GroundUp, by Warren Mabona – 2024-11-14

  • Families who were illegally sold plots on municipal land in Mpumalanga by a traditional leader will soon be forced to vacate the properties.
  • The Middelburg High Court has ruled in favour of the Thembisile Hani Local Municipality, dismissing the traditional leader’s attempt to appeal an eviction order.
  • Judas Mahlangu, leader of the Ndzundza-Mabhoko Traditional Authority, has been selling off stands on municipal-owned land for at least R2,500 each since 2018.

The Middelburg High Court has ruled in favour of the Thembisile Hani Local Municipality in Mpumalanga, ordering a group of people and the traditional leader who illegally sold them plots on municipal land to vacate properties.

The group have been ordered to leave the land by 31 October.

But many of the people still living in Magadangana Village say they have nowhere else to go. They say they spent what little money they had, or even took out loans, to build their homes there.

Judas Mahlangu, leader of the Ndzundza-Mabhoko Traditional Authority, has been selling off stands on the municipal land since 2018 for at least R2,500 each.

The battle between the municipality and Mahlangu has been ongoing for six years.

The area, officially known as the Farm Vlaklaagte, has no running water, electricity or road infrastructure. The people who bought stands from Mahlangu will be forced to leave as soon as the eviction order has been handed over to the sheriff of the court to execute, the municipality confirmed. This is after three failed legal attempts by Mahlangu to claim that he had a right to sell off the municipal land.

The Thembisile Hani municipality first found out in June 2019 that stands were being sold on its land. The land has been earmarked for the development of government housing.

The municipality went to court, and in February 2022 the Middleburg High Court interdicted Mahlangu and another man, Johannes Jiyane, from allocating stands. By then 175 sites had been “allocated”. According to some residents, Jiyane works with Mahlangu at the Ndzundza-Mabhoko Tribal Authority.

The municipality returned to court in January 2024, and Judge Mpopelele Bruce Langa ordered Mahlangu, Jiyane and those living on the land to leave by the end of April.

Mahlangu then filed an application to appeal against this ruling. On 23 August Judge Langa dismissed the appeal with costs. The judge said that leave to appeal should only be granted if the court is of the opinion that the appeal would have reasonable prospects of success or is arguable.

In rejecting the appeal, Judge Langa said that, among other things, Mahlangu had failed to prove his authority to bring the appeal on behalf of all of the people occupying the municipal land. “The fact that he may be the traditional leader in the area, did not give him the authority to act on behalf of the ‘community’ and institute legal proceedings without the resolution or consent by the community for him to do so,” he said.

Langa added that the court had made a factual finding that the municipality was the rightful owner and that there was not sufficient evidence that families had been on the land for more than six months before the initial litigation.

Nowhere to go

There are currently about 200 informal structures and brick homes on the land and a few larger brick and mortar houses are still being built.

Many of the residents GroundUp spoke to last week say they now live in fear daily of their imminent eviction.

Jabulani Ngema told GroundUp that he worries that he will be homeless for Christmas. He said he bought a stand from Mahlangu for R2,500 in 2021 and spent R5,000 on building material and furniture to construct his two-room shack.

“I am worried because I don’t know if the municipality will move us to another land.. I fear that the municipality will demolish my home and damage my building material when evicting us,” said Ngema. “Christmas is coming. I don’t want to be homeless.”

Ngema’s shack is on the outskirts of the site near a dam. He said moving out of the area would be a huge setback for him because he wants to start a vegetable garden and sell the produce to make a living.

Another resident owns a seven-roomed house on the site. He said he had spent more than R120,000 on his house so far. “I live with my wife and three children in this home and they love our house. If the municipality evicts and relocates us to another land, it will still be a big loss for me because I will have to spend more money building another house there.”

GroundUp sent questions to the spokesperson for Thembisile Hani Municipality, Simphiwe Mokako on 7 November 2024. Mokako said the court order had ordered the municipality to find alternative land, and “We have indicated that the municipality will abide by the court order.”

“The matter of the evictions is in the hands of the Sheriff.”

Mahlangu said he would not answer our questions before hanging up on us.

GroundUp also sent questions by email on 11 November to the Ndzundza-Mabhoko Traditional Authority but there was no response by the time of publication.

For further information

Simon Dippenaar & Associates, Inc. is a law firm of specialist eviction lawyers in Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. We help landlords and tenants maintain healthy working relationships. Contact one of our eviction attorneys on 086 099 5146 or simon@sdlaw.co.za if you need help with tenants’ rights or landlords’ responsibilities.

Further reading: