The Cape High Court has ordered the eviction of several families occupying land earmarked for the Amakhaya Ngoku community housing project in Masiphumelele.
They will have to move to temporary accommodation in a nearby area called Zululand.
Judge Dennis Davis told the community they could return to court if the temporary accommodation was not what they had been promised.
He told them he had no choice but to order their eviction because the temporary accommodation appeared to meet the requirements.
The Amakhaya Ngoku project, largely sponsored by foreign donors, was launched in October 2006 after a fire razed shacks in Masiphumelele.
The project was aimed at moving residents out of shacks and into several blocks of flats that were to be built and for which they would be charged a low rental.
The rent was R400 a month for those eligible for a subsidy and who earned an income of less than R3 500 a month.
Those who could prove that they did not have an income, were sick or poor, could live in the flats for free.
Construction was staggered.
The 24 families before court have been occupying land destined to be used for a community hall, créche, playground and parking area.
Eight of the families are eligible for flats, and nine more would have been eligible if they made the necessary application.
The families have been asked to move to temporary accommodation in Zululand - about a kilometre away - to make way for the development.
But they refused the temporary accommodation, saying it was a wetland and did not have the required facilities.
The case went to the high court and was postponed several times before it came before Judge Davis last month.
He gave the community a further postponement to enable them to obtain legal representation, and to prepare court papers.
But the community's new lawyers did not believe that the residents had a plausible case to prevent eviction.
Although the community did not regard the alternative accommodation as suitable, Judge Davis said the courts had made it clear that temporary accommodation need only be reasonable.
"In my opinion, the applicants have been as careful as possible in seeking out alternative accommodation within the framework of the law," Judge Davis said.
He was therefore obliged to order their eviction. They could, however, approach the court for relief if the temporary accommodation did not have the facilities promised.
The facilities include one toilet for every five families, one standpipe for every 25 people, electricity and weekly refuse removal.
They will have to move to temporary accommodation in a nearby area called Zululand.
Judge Dennis Davis told the community they could return to court if the temporary accommodation was not what they had been promised.
He told them he had no choice but to order their eviction because the temporary accommodation appeared to meet the requirements.
The Amakhaya Ngoku project, largely sponsored by foreign donors, was launched in October 2006 after a fire razed shacks in Masiphumelele.
The project was aimed at moving residents out of shacks and into several blocks of flats that were to be built and for which they would be charged a low rental.
The rent was R400 a month for those eligible for a subsidy and who earned an income of less than R3 500 a month.
Those who could prove that they did not have an income, were sick or poor, could live in the flats for free.
Construction was staggered.
The 24 families before court have been occupying land destined to be used for a community hall, créche, playground and parking area.
Eight of the families are eligible for flats, and nine more would have been eligible if they made the necessary application.
The families have been asked to move to temporary accommodation in Zululand - about a kilometre away - to make way for the development.
But they refused the temporary accommodation, saying it was a wetland and did not have the required facilities.
The case went to the high court and was postponed several times before it came before Judge Davis last month.
He gave the community a further postponement to enable them to obtain legal representation, and to prepare court papers.
But the community's new lawyers did not believe that the residents had a plausible case to prevent eviction.
Although the community did not regard the alternative accommodation as suitable, Judge Davis said the courts had made it clear that temporary accommodation need only be reasonable.
"In my opinion, the applicants have been as careful as possible in seeking out alternative accommodation within the framework of the law," Judge Davis said.
He was therefore obliged to order their eviction. They could, however, approach the court for relief if the temporary accommodation did not have the facilities promised.
The facilities include one toilet for every five families, one standpipe for every 25 people, electricity and weekly refuse removal.
- Cape Argus
No comments:
Post a Comment