Cape Town - The City of Cape Town will square off with the Human Rights Commission and the EFF in the Western Cape High Court today to determine the right of land owners to evict illegal land invaders without a court order.
The case is being brought the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and the EFF after the City’s security evicted a naked man from a shack in Khayelitsha in June last year.
The case was supposed to be heard on Monday but the court had to deal with the recusal application brought by the SAHRC for Judge Hayley Maud Slingers to recuse herself.
Commissioner André Gaum said the reason for the application was that Slingers’ husband was an employee of the first respondent (the City).
Gaum alleged that Slingers did not disclose that fact to the parties. He said when applicants made a polite enquiry to Slingers to confirm the information from the City, she responded but did not agree that there was any obligation on her to have disclosed that information to them.
“As a result, the applicants have a reasonable apprehension that Judge Slingers is biased. This does not arise primarily from Slingers’ husband's position at the City, but from Judge Slingers’ failure to disclose the relationship, and failure to concede there was even an obligation on her to disclose it,” said Gaum.
The judges and advocates spent almost five hours discussing the recusal application, which is also expected to be delivered this morning.
The actual counter-spoliation matter has not yet commenced as they needed to conclude the recusal matter first.
The Cape Argus tried to get Slingers to comment on the matter, but her registrar said she was still busy in the court.
The case about the City’s controversial eviction of Bulelani Qolani from his Khayelitsha shack in June last year is being heard by three judges – Justices Vincent Saldanha, Mokgoatji Dolamo and Slingers.
Mayor Dan Plato said the SAHRC and EFF were looking to set a very dangerous precedent, not only for all landowners but also for the sustainability of their communities and cities.
Plato said the interdict obtained in the first round of the matter has severely impacted the City’s land protection efforts in the face of a huge unlawful occupation spike since national lockdowns began.
“The Supreme Court of Appeal has consented to hear our appeal against the interdictory relief, and the City is confident that existing property protection rights will ultimately be upheld as both reasonable and constitutional,” said Plato.
Human Settlements MEC Tertuis Simmers said the hearing of the matter had become protracted due to no fault of the parties.
“I welcome the resumption of this hearing, particularly since it presents us with the opportunity to place our position before the court with the hindsight of the past 18 months of lockdown experience behind us,” said Simmers.
He said the hearing has been much delayed, which has cost all the parties both time and money but they remained confident in their argument that the common law remedy of counter-spoliation – which recognised an owner’s right to immediately retake possession of unlawfully seized property without approaching a court first – was both reasonable and constitutional.