Daily News: No decision on resistance to shack demolition

http://www.dailynews.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4549096

No decision on resistance to shack demolition

August 08, 2008 Edition 1

Irene Kuppan

The Durban High Court yesterday reserved judgment in the Reservoir Hills’ shack dwellers’ legal battle to prevent the eThekwini Municipality from demolishing their shacks.

The shack dwellers, who have already been granted an interim interdict, are seeking a final interdict against the council, preventing it from evicting them or demolishing their homes.

The six Arnett Drive Settlement residents were granted the interim order earlier this year, after the municipality’s Land Invasion Unit des-troyed four shacks at the settlement.

According to the shack dwellers’ heads of argument, the residents had lived on and built shacks at the Arnett Drive informal settlement.

In August last year the residents extended their shacks, which had become cramped and overcrowded, to make room for their families.

They said in November that the council’s land invasion unit marked each of the extended shacks and the new ones with an X.

The shack dwellers said in January the land invasion unit demolished three shacks on one occasion and later destroyed a fourth one.

According to the residents, these shacks belonged to three families, all of whom had children.

They said members of the unit told them they would be back to demolish the remaining shacks, which is when they took the matter to court.

The residents’ legal team said the council had no right to evict shack dwellers or demolish their homes without a court order.

They also said that no legal basis for the demolition of the homes had been placed before the court by the municipality.

The residents also pointed out that the council and land invasion unit refused to discuss the demolitions with them, or respond to any of the letters sent to the council by their lawyer.

In its papers, the council said it had only destroyed those shacks that were unoccupied.

It added that they did not destroy occupied shacks and had no intention of destroying the resident’s homes.

Faded

According to the municipality, during the visit in November, an X was placed on the twelve newly-erected shacks, which was necessary for the housing section to distinguish the newly-erected shacks from pre-existing marked shacks.

The council said during the next visit in January by the land invasion unit, three unoccupied shacks and a half-built structure were demolished.

The council denied that residents were told the land invasion unit would return to des-troy all the shacks, saying the unit had spoken only to one woman who was extending her shack.

She was told it was unlawful to do so and told to demolish it. The unit said it would return the next day to find out if she did.

The council that said it played an important role in provision of housing for the poor and is often unfairly targeted regarding its efforts to provide housing.