Occupiers of Portion R25 of the Farm Mooiplaats 355 JR v Golden Thread Limited

About 170 families unlawfully occupied land (Remainder of Portion 25 of the Farm Mooiplaats 355 JR) owned by Golden Thread Limited within the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality. The occupiers had moved from the overcrowded Itireleng informal settlement, which was established in 2004. When Itireleng became overcrowded, some occupiers moved to adjacent property and were evicted in 2009. In December 2009, the applicant families moved onto the land in question. After their homes were demolished, they began rebuilding on 15 January 2010. Golden Thread instituted eviction proceedings on 21 January 2010. The North Gauteng High Court granted an eviction order, finding it just and equitable, and ordering eviction by 29 March 2010. The City of Tshwane was joined but only briefed counsel on a watching brief and provided minimal assistance. The occupiers sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

• Whether the High Court correctly concluded that the eviction order was just and equitable within the meaning of section 4(6) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)
• Whether the High Court should have required the City of Tshwane to provide information about the occupiers' housing situation and the availability of alternative land or emergency housing
• Whether the High Court should have explored the possibility of mediation facilitated by the municipality
• The role and obligations of municipalities in eviction proceedings under the PIE Act, particularly where occupation is less than six months
• Whether the City or the Province of Gauteng is responsible for financing emergency housing provision

1. Leave to appeal granted and appeal upheld with costs, including costs of two counsel. 2. The order of the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria in case number 3492/2010 was set aside. 3. The matter was remitted to the High Court for reconsideration. 4. The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality was ordered to file a detailed report by 28 February 2012 covering: (a) particulars of the housing situation of the applicants; (b) steps taken or intended to provide alternative land or emergency accommodation; (c) when alternative accommodation can be provided; (d) effects of eviction without alternative accommodation; and (e) steps to alleviate effects on the landowner if eviction is delayed. 5. The applicants and first respondent were given 15 days to respond to the City's report.

In determining whether an eviction is just and equitable under section 4(6) of the PIE Act (where occupation is less than six months), a court must consider all relevant circumstances, which includes investigating whether a municipality can reasonably provide alternative land or emergency housing where a significant number of people will be rendered homeless by the eviction. Even though section 4(7) expressly requires consideration of alternative accommodation only where occupation exceeds six months, this does not relieve courts from considering this factor under section 4(6) where it is a relevant circumstance given the particular facts. Municipalities have both the power and the constitutional duty to finance emergency housing provision from their own resources and must be required to provide detailed information about housing options in eviction proceedings where homelessness is a likely consequence. Property ownership rights in South Africa are not absolute and may be temporarily restricted in appropriate circumstances, particularly where the property is not being used and little prejudice would result from delayed eviction.

The Court made several important observations: (1) It criticized the inappropriate citation of parties in the High Court as 'people who intend invading' and 'people who invaded' land, stating this description detracts from the humanity of occupiers, is emotive and judgmental, and comes close to criminalizing them. More neutral terms like 'occupiers' should be used. (2) The Court noted that the High Court was correct to criticize the City for its failure to attend the hearing and assist the court, describing it as 'a very sad state of affairs' given the City's constitutional obligations. (3) The Court observed that if Golden Thread has not put the land to any use and has no plans to do so in the foreseeable future, there would be little prejudice in allowing temporary continued occupation until alternative land becomes available. (4) The judgment distinguished the case from Occupiers of Shorts Retreat based on the duration of occupation, but held this distinction was not decisive to the justice and equity enquiry.

This case is significant for clarifying the obligations of municipalities in eviction proceedings under the PIE Act, even where the period of unlawful occupation is less than six months. It establishes that courts must consider the availability of alternative accommodation as part of the 'all relevant circumstances' enquiry under section 4(6), not only under section 4(7). The judgment reinforces that municipalities have both power and duty to finance emergency housing from their own resources (rejecting attempts to shift responsibility to provinces). It emphasizes the constitutional transformation of property law, confirming that ownership rights are not absolute and can be temporarily limited where necessary to protect vulnerable occupiers from homelessness. The judgment also provides guidance on the proper citation of parties in eviction proceedings, criticizing dehumanizing and judgmental descriptions of occupiers. It underscores the importance of municipalities actively participating in eviction proceedings and exploring mediation options.