The residents of Clarendon Heights in Hillbrow were given a lifeline after the City of Johannesburg issued an eviction order against them, claiming the building was being hijacked. The residents filed an appeal against the decision. Despite a court order that had initially directed them to leave the building within 48 hours, residents of Clarendon Heights, a sectional title building in Hillbrow that has been described as hijacked, will be permitted to stay in their homes this Christmas.
The development coincides with an increased citywide crackdown on unsafe and hijacked buildings, spearheaded by MMC for Public Safety Mgcini Tshwaku and initiated by the City of Johannesburg after DJ Warras was shot and killed. Concerns expressed by civil society organisations, who have long cautioned that evictions without sustainable housing alternatives only displace vulnerable residents rather than address the issue, have been rekindled by the increased enforcement effort. The Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act, which mandates that alternative housing be taken into consideration before any removals can occur, especially for vulnerable occupants, has been reaffirmed by city officials as a requirement for all evictions.
The occupiers – about 38 – against whom the order was earlier obtained in the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, tried in vain to obtain leave to appeal the eviction order. They will now petition the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) in a bid to appeal the eviction order. While a pending appeal usually suspends an order, the Clarendon Heights Body Corporate and the City of Joburg, meanwhile, obtained an order that they must be evicted, even though the appeal is still pending.
[paywall]
In the latest saga, the residents appealed this order, and in a judgment delivered earlier this month, Judge Leonie Windell agreed to suspend the eviction order for now. This is because of the uncertainty of where the residents will go if they are evicted within 48 hours and the risk of potential homelessness. While she acknowledged exceptional circumstances and ongoing harm to the body corporate and the city, there was insufficient evidence on the occupiers’ vulnerability, household composition, or the availability of temporary emergency accommodation.
[/paywall]
