Approximately 50 families (applicants) unlawfully occupied land owned by PPC Aggregate Quarries (Pty) Limited (first respondent) in the Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality area. The land was described as the Remaining Extent of the Farm Skurweplaas 353, J.R., Tshwane, Gauteng. PPC Quarries successfully obtained an eviction order against the occupiers in the North Gauteng High Court on 24 March 2010. The High Court also made orders requiring the City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality (second respondent) to conduct an audit of the occupiers and provide them with alternative land by 31 May 2010. However, the order authorized PPC Quarries to evict the occupiers on 1 June 2010 regardless of whether the City had complied with its obligations to provide alternative accommodation. The applicants challenged the High Court order on the basis that it was not 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).
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal upheld. The order of the North Gauteng High Court in case number 12289/2010 was set aside. The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality was ordered to: (a) gather complete information on the personal circumstances of all occupiers on the land as at 24 March 2010 and the number who would become homeless after eviction; (b) present this information to the applicants' attorneys by 28 February 2012; and (c) provide those occupiers who would be rendered homeless access to alternative accommodation by 30 April 2012. PPC Aggregate Quarries (Pty) Limited was entitled to evict the occupiers on 31 May 2012. The City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality was ordered to pay the costs of the applicants and PPC Aggregate Quarries (Pty) Limited including, where applicable, the costs of two counsel in the High Court and this Court.
In determining whether an eviction order is just and equitable under section 4(6) of the PIE Act, a property owner's rights cannot be regarded as wholly unqualified. While a property owner cannot be expected to provide free housing indefinitely, in certain circumstances an owner may have to be patient and accept that the right to occupation may be temporarily restricted. When occupiers will be rendered homeless by an eviction, it is neither just nor equitable to evict them before alternative accommodation is provided. The date of eviction must be linked to a date on which the responsible municipality has to provide alternative accommodation. This linkage is necessary to prevent occupiers from being rendered homeless for an indeterminate period between eviction and the provision of alternative accommodation. An owner's right to use and enjoy property at common law can be limited in the process of the justice and equity enquiry mandated by the PIE Act.
The Court made important observations about the citation of unlawful occupiers in legal proceedings. It stated that describing human beings as "the people who intend invading" or "the unknown people who invaded" property is less than satisfactory and cannot pass without comment. This form of citation detracts from the humanity of the occupiers, is emotive and judgmental, and comes close to criminalising the occupiers. Such citation should not be resorted to. A more neutral appellation like "occupiers" would be more appropriate. The Court also commented on the City's attempt to challenge, via the back door, the correctness of the High Court order requiring it to provide land to the applicants by arguing that only the province had the obligation and power to finance emergency housing. The Court stated that this indirect challenge would not be entertained, particularly given that the City had never sought at any stage to formally challenge the correctness of the High Court judgment.
This case is significant in South African law as it reinforces and applies the principles established in Blue Moonlight Properties regarding the balance between property owners' rights and the constitutional protection against arbitrary evictions. It establishes that: (1) property owners' rights are not absolute in just and equitable enquiries under PIE; (2) there must be a temporal linkage between eviction orders and the provision of alternative accommodation to prevent homelessness; (3) municipalities cannot evict people who will be rendered homeless until alternative accommodation is actually provided; and (4) courts must give effect to section 26(3) of the Constitution by ensuring that evictions do not render people homeless. The judgment also provides important guidance on the proper and dignified citation of unlawful occupiers in legal proceedings, rejecting emotive and criminalizing language. The case demonstrates the Constitutional Court's commitment to protecting vulnerable occupiers while also recognizing legitimate property rights, requiring reasonable patience from property owners when alternative accommodation can be provided within a reasonable timeframe.