http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4813533

slum clearance case lost in high court
Shack dwellers vow to fight on

January 28, 2009 Edition 1

Tania Broughton

SHACK dwellers have vowed to continue their battle to scrap “slum eradication” legislation after they lost their case in the Durban High Court yesterday.

“We will take it all the way to the Constitutional Court,” said members of the Abahlali baseMjondolo (shack dwellers’) movement, after hearing that Judge President Vuka Tshabalala had rejected their attempt to have the Slums Act declared unconstitutional.

Not only did the judge disagree with their submission that the legislation was offensive and in conflict with other housing and eviction laws in South Africa, he went further, “applauding” the province for attempting to deal with slums and slum conditions.

“This is the first province to have adopted such legislation. The Act makes things more orderly and it must be given a chance to show off its potential. This court cannot strike down an Act before it has even been properly implemented.”

The shack dwellers claim the Act allows for large-scale forced evictions with little or no consultation and prevents the creation of new informal settlements.

Their lawyers also argued that the provincial government did not have the competence to pass the Act because it primarily dealt with land issues – not housing – and land issues were handled by the national government.

But lawyers for the government said accusations that the Act would result in evictions and wide-scale homelessness were unfounded.

In his judgment handed down yesterday, Judge Tshabalala said this was a sensitive and important matter “because so many people are affected by it”.

“The living conditions of those who live in slums is a universal problem. The right to housing is a basic human right. This court acknowledges the plight of those without proper housing. However, the case must be judged according to the facts at hand.”

He threw out the argument that the provincial government did not have the competency to pass the law in the first place, saying that if the Act were looked at in its entirety, its main objective was housing.

He also found the Act to be a “reasonable legislative response” to deal with the plight of the vulnerable in society.

“The applicants have come to court with the view that it is evil and bad and there will be no meaningful engagement with those affected before the decision is taken to evict them, and that people will not be given alternative accommodation,” he said.

But that ignored that the Act incorporated the provisions of other legislation governing evictions, the national housing code which was binding on all, and the Housing Act which required all spheres of government to “consult meaningfully”.

He dismissed the application but made no order for costs.

Housing MEC Mike Mabuyakhulu said the department had been vindicated.

“We have always maintained that this legislation was in the interests of the province and that the province should be congratulated for having the foresight and the vision to nip the challenge of slums proliferation in the bud,” he said.

“Even in the face of fabrication and misinformation that the legislation was aimed at destroying all existing informal settlements in the province, we have always maintained the Act had noble intentions as it acknowledged the reality of existing informal settlements, but aimed at preventing the further mushrooming of slums.”

Mabuyakhulu said his department would now intensify efforts to rid the province of informal settlements and provide people with decent houses.

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4700038

Slums Act hearings begin in Durban

November 07, 2008 Edition 1

Tania Broughton

DANCING and singing, a crowd of red-T-shirt-clad shack dwellers descended on the Durban High Court yesterday to hear legal argument in their attempt to have the KwaZulu-Natal Slums Act deemed unconstitutional and scrapped from the law books.

“Phansi, Slums Act, Phansi,” their T-shirts and banners proclaimed as they blew vuvuzelas and chanted freedom songs outside the court building at the start of the two-day hearing.

The shack dwellers – under the umbrella of the Abahlali baseMjondolo movement – claim the Act’s avowed objective is “slum eradication” through large-scale forced evictions, with little or no consultation and prevention of new informal settlements.

They say this flies in the face of the constitution, national laws and policies which give people rights to housing and propose shack settlement upgrades.

In argument before KwaZulu-Natal Judge President Vuka Tshabalala yesterday, Abahlali’s advocate, Heidi Barnes, submitted that the Act was irrational and repressive, and threatened to infringe the rights of some of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society.

Barnes said the reality in Durban was that evictions and shack demolitions took place frequently, without following the provisions of legislation laid down to guide evictions.

“People are frequently left homeless,” she said.

Barnes said that when the Act was promulgated, people living in shacks wondered what had happened to government promises of shack upgrades.

She argued that the provincial government did not have the competence to pass the Act because it dealt with land issues, not housing. But the government defended its legislation, arguing that when interpreted in its proper context it was designed to improve the lives of those living in slum conditions and to ensure that slums and slum conditions did not proliferate.

In documents before the court prepared by advocate Jeremy Gauntlett, the government argued that the Act was “reasonable and rational”.

“The assertion that the Act will result in massive evictions and wide-scale homelessness is unfounded,” Gauntlett said.

Judgment is expected to be reserved.

http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=4579195

Judge rules on threat to demolish shacks

August 27, 2008 Edition 2

Tania Broughton

RESIDENTS of a Durban informal settlement will sleep easy after securing a final Durban High Court interdict preventing city officials from demolishing their makeshift homes.

Yesterday’s order by Acting Judge Jerome Mnguni is being hailed as a victory for the shack dwellers.

While the matter centred on a narrow issue of “reasonable apprehension” of demolition, their attorney, Mahendra Chetty, of Durban’s Legal Resources Centre, said the ruling sent out a message that the rights of those living in informal settlements could not be trampled on.

It also placed an obligation on the municipality to communicate effectively with shack dwellers about its intentions.

The six residents were granted an interim interdict in January after they complained that officials from the Land Invasion Unit had destroyed four shacks in two separate incidents at the Annette Drive settlement.

They said the demolishers had warned that they would be back to tear down more dwellings.

In its papers before the court, the municipality admitted demolishing three “unoccupied” shacks as well as a half-built structure.

However, officials denied saying they would be back to demolish more.

In a written ruling yesterday, the judge said the sole issue to be determined was whether on the probabilities the unit did make the threat.

He referred to two letters written by the shack dwellers’ attorney to the municipality which “recorded the concerns and facts on the minds of the shack dwellers when faced with the conduct of the unit”.

The pattern of facts gave credence to the shack dwellers’ case, he said, and granted final relief with costs.

Judge rules on threat to demolish shacks

August 27, 2008 Edition 2

Tania Broughton

RESIDENTS of a Durban informal settlement will sleep easy after securing a final Durban High Court interdict preventing city officials from demolishing their makeshift homes.

Yesterday’s order by Acting Judge Jerome Mnguni is being hailed as a victory for the shack dwellers.

While the matter centred on a narrow issue of “reasonable apprehension” of demolition, their attorney, Mahendra Chetty, of Durban’s Legal Resources Centre, said the ruling sent out a message that the rights of those living in informal settlements could not be trampled on.

It also placed an obligation on the municipality to communicate effectively with shack dwellers about its intentions.

The six residents were granted an interim interdict in January after they complained that officials from the Land Invasion Unit had destroyed four shacks in two separate incidents at the Annette Drive settlement.

They said the demolishers had warned that they would be back to tear down more dwellings.

In its papers before the court, the municipality admitted demolishing three “unoccupied” shacks as well as a half-built structure.

However, officials denied saying they would be back to demolish more.

In a written ruling yesterday, the judge said the sole issue to be determined was whether on the probabilities the unit did make the threat.

He referred to two letters written by the shack dwellers’ attorney to the municipality which “recorded the concerns and facts on the minds of the shack dwellers when faced with the conduct of the unit”.

The pattern of facts gave credence to the shack dwellers’ case, he said, and granted final relief with costs.