Cape Town - Courts are not there to rubber-stamp
decisions, Western Cape High Court
Judge Bernard Martin said as he refused
to grant an agreement drafted between lawyers representing
the homeless, the City of Cape Town,
and legal representatives of affluent
ratepayers.
Judge Martin instead extended a previous order in which the City undertook to desist from certain conduct, including confiscating the homeless’ personal property, and harassing or abusing them.
The high court heard the case of seven homeless people who sought to interdict the City from continuing to fine them and other homeless people for, among other things, sleeping on the side of the road.
The court action follows the City having issued at least 199 fines to the homeless this year.
As proceedings got underway Judge Martin said the case would take place in the spirit of Ubuntu, as every legal act and decision had to be made in line with the principles of the Constitution.
Judge Martin said housing was the most litigated of all socio-economic issues in the country.
“Judges must roll up their sleeves and get their hands dirty in order to attain the vision of the Constitution,” Judge Martin said.
Advocate Karrisha Pillay, for the City, said the City always considered the Constitution in the drafting of laws, and she also noted parameters on which the high court could make a ruling, as she argued the court should not deviate from considering evidence which was before it.
Johan de Waal admitted as a friend of the court and representing the Camps Bay Business Forum, the Atlantic Seaboard Ratepayers Association, the Garden Neighbourhood Watch, the Greenpoint Neighbourhood Watch, and the City Bowl Ratepayers.
He argued that the conduct of the homeless applicants undermined the rights of ratepayers to access public spaces.
“A balance must be struck between the applicants and ratepayers,” he said, arguing that the homeless could not be exempt from being fined for skurreling, or scratching in bins.
As proceedings moved along the parties reached an agreement between themselves, which would have superimposed the previous order in which the City undertook to desist from certain conduct, including confiscating the homeless’ personal property, and harassing or abusing them.
The new draft order would have included suspending the following through of fines and summonses of the seven homeless applicants, pending a review of the by-law next year.
But Judge Martin was not happy, and after a brief adjournment said the court was not to be used as a rubber stamp, and he extended the initial order, with no end date given.