The Drakenstein Municipality is appealing a ruling made against it in July which found that the it had failed to make adequate provision for emergency housing. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks
- The Drakenstein Municipality has lodged an appeal against a Western Cape High Court judgment on 28 July that found it had failed to make adequate provision for emergency housing.
- The municipality said the court had disregarded evidence of its emergency housing efforts.
- The case was initially lodged by a former farm worker on behalf of himself and others facing eviction in rural areas.
The Drakenstein Municipality believes it has “gone out of its way” to fulfil its constitutional obligations to provide emergency housing to those evicted from rural areas.
The municipality has filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal (or alternatively with a full bench of the Western Cape High Court) against a ruling by acting judge Bernard Martin on 28 July that found it had failed to make adequate provision for emergency housing.
In 2015, former farm worker Eric Lolo was served with an eviction order by Greenwillows Properties, which owns Langkloof Roses farm in Wellington, where he was staying with his daughter and her child. While Lolo has since found employment on another farm, his daughter and grandchild still live at Langkloof.
Lolo applied to the High Court on behalf of himself and others facing eviction in rural areas, hoping to hold the municipality accountable for the lack of emergency housing for poor and unemployed people in farming areas. The ruling stated that the municipality failed to take reasonable measures to provide people living in the Drakenstein region with emergency housing. The court also stated that the municipality is legally obligated to make provision from its own funds, and not only rely on provincial funding for emergency housing.
On 19 August, the municipality, in its appeal, said that the court had failed to consider evidence of its financial position and the “strides it had made in housing generally, and emergency housing in particular”.
The municipality said the court had disregarded evidence of its emergency housing efforts, noting several of its housing programmes, such as the Vlakkeland Housing Development and the Schoongezicht site in Paarl. It also mentioned several other emergency housing projects it funded.
The appeal stated that the ruling failed to mention that Lolo had been offered alternative accommodation but had rejected these offers. And that his reasons for not accepting the offer were unjustified.
The municipality also said that the “applicants failed to put up any alternatively adequate evidence of systemic failures on the part of the municipality, or inadequate compliance with its constitutional duties”.
Jacqueline Samson, Drakenstein’s Executive Director of Planning and Development told GroundUp that the “judgment unfortunately does not assist persons in Mr. Lolo’s position, but [is] rather a theoretical exposition of many issues and challenges that are beyond the control of local government”.
A date for the hearing is yet to be confirmed.
© 2022 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.
