|
''Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and Another, Amici Curiae)''〔2010 (3) SA 454 (CC).〕 is an important case in South African property law, heard by the Constitutional Court〔Langa CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Mokgoro J, Ngcobo J, O'Regan J, Sachs J, Van Der Westhuizen J and Yacoob J.〕 on August 21, 2008, with judgment handed down on June 10. == Facts == Joe Slovo informal settlement, situated alongside the N2 highway in Cape Town,〔Para 126.〕 on land owned by the City of Cape Town, was first occupied in the 1990s. It was rife with fire hazards, and its conditions were unsanitary.〔Para 24.〕 Although initially it had no running water, and no toilets or roads or electricity, the municipality began over time to provide some basic services, including water, container toilets and rudimentary cleaning. After a devastating fire in 2000,〔Para 21.〕 and after some "pressure, negotiations or demands,"〔Para 22.〕 the City had, in terms of its constitutional and legislative obligations, made further provision for "substantial services of a permanent nature,"〔Para 151.〕 including tap water, toilets, refuse removal, the lay-out of streets, drainage, connection to the electricity grid and house numbers.〔Paras 21, 151.〕 These basic municipal services were carried out in "an ongoing, long-term fashion."〔Para 151.〕 The residents had lived there for a long time, some for as long as fifteen years. Apparently the question was never raised, during the fifteen years of the settlement's existence, of their right to occupy;〔Para 22.〕 there was certainly no evidence of the City's ever having tried to remove them. Under the state's Breaking New Ground (BNG) policy, aimed at the elimination of informal settlements in South Africa, Joe Slovo was targeted for upgrade and redevelopment, "no doubt because of the deplorable and inhuman conditions under which the people live."〔Para 25.〕 The Gateway Housing Project (as it was called) required that the residents be moved. During 2006 and 2007 "considerable effort" was undertaken to persuade them to relocate to Delft,〔Para 31.〕 that Thubelisha Homes might proceed with the development of the second phase of the project. This effort failed because, having been promised rents of between R150 and R300 per month, the price actually turned out, according to the occupants, to range from R600 to R1,050.〔Para 32.〕 At some point during their subsequent occupation, each of the residents was a dealt a "red card" by the City, indicating that the holder had applied for housing with the municipality.〔Para 35.〕 The respondents brought a High-Court application seeking the residents' eviction in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE),〔Act 19 of 1998.〕〔s 6.〕 on the grounds that the property was required for the development. The residents, for their part, argued that they were not unlawful occupiers: They had obtained the necessary consent of the City of Cape Town to occupy the land,〔s 6(1)(a).〕〔In terms of s 1(ii), consent may be "express or tacit () in writing or otherwise."〕 and hence were not "unlawful occupiers" as defined in the Act.〔s 1.〕 They should not, therefore, be evicted. The appellants also depended on the provision of the red cards—these, they argued, entitled them to remain in undisturbed possession of their houses〔Para 40.〕—and on the fact that reconstruction work had been done by the City after the fire,〔Para 43.〕 as well as on the supply of basic services, which ostensibly indicated the City's consent.〔Para 38.〕 Nomaindia Mfeketo, the previous mayor of Cape Town, denied in her testimony that consent had been given to occupy. She argued that the services had been provided for "basic humanitarian reasons."〔Quoted at para 40.〕 They must not be construed as consent on the part of the City; nor, Mfeketo contended, did they grant the residents any enforceable right to remain in the area. It had always been intended that informal settlements in general would be upgraded or moved or redeveloped, in conformity with the state's constitutional imperative to provide access to adequate housing on a progressive basis.〔s 26(1).〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Residents of Joe Slovo Community v Thubelisha Homes」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|