Durban - Society would not accept that economically deprived people could simply help themselves to the assets of others, a Durban High Court judge said, ruling against a group of “home invaders” seeking an order stopping their eviction from a new housing development in Newlands.
Judge Graham Lopes said if he had granted the order, “I would surely be opening the door to anarchy and civil disorder”.
After hearing the ruling this week, a group of people, some wearing EFF garb, gathered outside the court protesting. A policeman stationed at the court was pushed against a wall and kicked, but no arrests were made.
The matter that came before Judge Lopes was between the people illegally occupying the Hilldale Complex, and Woodglaze Trading, owned by controversial businessman Jay Singh, who has gone to court twice to get orders evicting the group of “invaders”. They had overpowered security guards and taken over the 96 units in December 2013 and again in November last year.
The occupiers, in their latest court action, wanted a reconsideration of the November eviction order, claiming they were not at court when the interim and the final orders were granted because they were unaware of the urgent application.
Woodglaze said this was not true and referred to the various returns of service provided by the relevant sheriffs, noting personal service on some people and that the orders were read out in English and Zulu on a loudhailer to all those in occupation of the premises at the time. One of the returns also noted that Woodglaze’s general manager, Pravash Inderjeeth, had been present.
The judge said a return of service (written acknowledgement by a process server declaring that there was service of legal documents) was valid unless there was clear evidence to challenge it.
In this matter, the affidavit of Sanele Xhakaza, on behalf of the occupiers, spoke in very general and vague terms about their identities, saying “they” did not understand about the court applications.
“He directly contradicts the contents of two sets of returns made by different deputy sheriffs in two different years.
“This would suggest an improbable degree of dereliction of duties or a highly improbable level of duplicity,” he said.
He also noted that Xhakaza had claimed that they had not left the premises after the first eviction order but had carried on living there while construction, including the laying of pipes and paving, continued.
This was contradicted by Inderjeeth, who said they had been removed and work could not have continued if they had not been.
Judge Lopes said he was not unsympathetic to the plight of the occupiers and the entire matter had its origins in the unfortunate fact that a great number of people had no access to adequate and proper housing. But the invasion had caused inconvenience to others, with Woodglaze saying it spent about R4 million repairing damage after the first invasion. In addition, people who had signed 96 contracts to lease the units had been left waiting.
He dismissed the application but did not order that the occupiers pay the costs because “it would lead to further waste of time and effort”.
The Mercury