South Africa

GROUNDUP

Judgment reserved in Drakenstein emergency housing case

Judgment reserved in Drakenstein emergency housing case
Co-director Colette Solomon and other members of the Women on Farms Project leave the Western Cape high court in August last year where a case over the Drakenstien Municipality’s emergency housing plan was being heard. This week, judgment was reserved for a month. (Archive photo: Liezl Human)

Court was ‘left to speculate’ about the municipality’s emergency housing plan, argues advocate.

First published in GroundUp.

It is unclear how much emergency housing the Drakenstein Municipality has created since 2012 — when it first acknowledged the escalating crisis of tens of thousands of farmworkers facing eviction in the region. This was part of the argument raised by advocate Peter Hathorn, who represented a Wellington farm dweller in the Western Cape high court on Monday.

Eric Lolo, who faces eviction, brought the case on behalf of himself and other evictees in the area. The purpose of the court hearing is to hold the municipality to account for the manner in which it implements its emergency housing plan.

Hathorn previously argued that the municipality breached its constitutional and statutory obligations by not taking reasonable steps to provide emergency housing for evicted farm dwellers living within its area of jurisdiction.

On Monday, Hathorn said that during the last hearing in August 2020, the court was “left to speculate” about these “emergency housing opportunities”.

Advocate Mark Greig, for the Drakenstein municipality, has argued that a supervisory role by the court over the municipality’s emergency housing plan would amount to judicial overreach.

This week, Greig said that a supervisory order from the court would be “untenable”. He said that the municipality gave the court “lengthy exposition” on projects it has done to address the crisis.

Greig told the court that “every municipality in this country would be non-compliant” if successful emergency housing meant that each and every person would be assisted.

Acting Judge Bernard Martin reserved judgment until both parties submitted additional arguments for consideration. He gave both legal teams a month to respond.

Martin said that it was necessary for the court to have “a clear criteria for success or failure” before ruling on the matter. DM

 

Gallery

Comments - Please in order to comment.

Please peer review 3 community comments before your comment can be posted

X

This article is free to read.

Sign up for free or sign in to continue reading.

Unlike our competitors, we don’t force you to pay to read the news but we do need your email address to make your experience better.


Nearly there! Create a password to finish signing up with us:

Please enter your password or get a sign in link if you’ve forgotten

Open Sesame! Thanks for signing up.

We would like our readers to start paying for Daily Maverick...

…but we are not going to force you to. Over 10 million users come to us each month for the news. We have not put it behind a paywall because the truth should not be a luxury.

Instead we ask our readers who can afford to contribute, even a small amount each month, to do so.

If you appreciate it and want to see us keep going then please consider contributing whatever you can.

Support Daily Maverick→
Payment options

Daily Maverick Elections Toolbox

Feeling powerless in politics?

Equip yourself with the tools you need for an informed decision this election. Get the Elections Toolbox with shareable party manifesto guide.