THE Constitutional Court yesterday grappled with arguments about the state’s constitutional obligation to provide access to adequate housing versus the rights of occupiers of land to occupation .
In March, Cape Judge President John Hlophe ordered that the various occupiers of Joe Slovo informal settlement in Langa, Cape Town, be moved to a temporary relocation area in Delft, 15km away.
Joe Slovo is an informal settlement of about 20000 people alongside the N2 highway.
The housing department sought to temporarily remove the residents from Joe Slovo to Delft in order to construct houses for them.
The residents, who had applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against Hlophe’s order, argued that they were not unlawful occupiers of land as defined in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
One of the pre requisites for the application of the act was that the person sought to be evicted must be an unlawful occupier.
Geoff Budlender, counsel for a committee known as the Task Team, said the residents had the express consent of the c ity to occupy the land.
He said the purpose of the PIE Act was to give protection to the occupiers of land.
Budlender said Joe Slovo residents would prefer to remain in the settlement rather than move to Delft as there were no guarantees they could come back to the redeveloped Joe Slovo. Budlender said the promises made by city authorities that 70% of new houses would be given to Joe Slovo residents had been broken.
Counsel for another committee, Peter Hathorn, said the lives of the residents of Joe Slovo would not improve by being moved to Delft.
Judge Sandile Ngcobo said residents knew that they would have to leave the settlement at some stage because the area was earmarked for development.
Michael Donen SC, for the government, said the housing minister’s greatest desire was to deliver houses to the people of Joe Slovo and not to engage in litigation.
He said the government’s decision to build houses in Joe Slovo was a response to the Constitutional Court judgment of Irene Grootboom, where the court ruled that the state must attend to the needs of vulnerable groups.
The court reserved judgment on the case. - Business Day News worth knowing
In March, Cape Judge President John Hlophe ordered that the various occupiers of Joe Slovo informal settlement in Langa, Cape Town, be moved to a temporary relocation area in Delft, 15km away.
Joe Slovo is an informal settlement of about 20000 people alongside the N2 highway.
The housing department sought to temporarily remove the residents from Joe Slovo to Delft in order to construct houses for them.
The residents, who had applied for leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court against Hlophe’s order, argued that they were not unlawful occupiers of land as defined in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE).
One of the pre requisites for the application of the act was that the person sought to be evicted must be an unlawful occupier.
Geoff Budlender, counsel for a committee known as the Task Team, said the residents had the express consent of the c ity to occupy the land.
He said the purpose of the PIE Act was to give protection to the occupiers of land.
Budlender said Joe Slovo residents would prefer to remain in the settlement rather than move to Delft as there were no guarantees they could come back to the redeveloped Joe Slovo. Budlender said the promises made by city authorities that 70% of new houses would be given to Joe Slovo residents had been broken.
Counsel for another committee, Peter Hathorn, said the lives of the residents of Joe Slovo would not improve by being moved to Delft.
Judge Sandile Ngcobo said residents knew that they would have to leave the settlement at some stage because the area was earmarked for development.
Michael Donen SC, for the government, said the housing minister’s greatest desire was to deliver houses to the people of Joe Slovo and not to engage in litigation.
He said the government’s decision to build houses in Joe Slovo was a response to the Constitutional Court judgment of Irene Grootboom, where the court ruled that the state must attend to the needs of vulnerable groups.
The court reserved judgment on the case. - Business Day News worth knowing
No comments:
Post a Comment