Judge slams land grabbing
The High Court has ruled that intolerable living conditions are not a licence for land grabbing.
The High Court yesterday found that at least 15 applicants had been legally evicted during an illegal land invasion at 7de Laan two weeks ago, but said there was evidence of deplorable conditions and urged the authorities to speed up land provision.
In his judgement, released yesterday afternoon, Judge Shafimana Ueitele said that having dismissed their application, primarily due to a lack of evidence to support their claims of long-term occupation before the evictions, it was important to note that “we as a country are facing extremely serious problems relating to poverty, unemployment and more importantly housing”.
He cautioned however that “these intolerable living conditions cannot be a licence to impel people to resort to land grabbing. Self-help of this kind cannot and must not be tolerated.”
The judge concluded his judgement by saying that “I want to record that this case shows the desperation of people living in deplorable conditions in the city.”
Ueitele said the municipality was obliged to “act positively to ameliorate these conditions” and was under an obligation to provide access to urban land to its inhabitants.
He warned however that the obligation to provide land “does not mean and must never be interpreted to mean that conditions of poverty and landlessness are a license to land grabbing aimed at coercing the City into making land available.”
Citing a Supreme Court judgement, Ueitele said that “the destruction of a home and the removal of its contents have grave implications for the people concerned. Homes are the centre of people's lives.”
Appeal on the cards
The Affirmative Reposition (AR) announced yesterday that they were likely to appeal the judgement in which the 15 7de Laan homeowners were ordered to vacate their homes by no later than 28 April.
“We approached the court in search of justice. Our struggle is not confined to the court but we are merely doing whatever we can to restore the dignity of our people with the little we have,” the AR said in a statement yesterday afternoon.
The AR said that following appeal, the “judgement of today will be temporarily suspended and be of no effect immediately. The matter will then proceed to the Supreme Court.”
Yesterday, Judge Shafimana Ueitele dismissed part A of the urgent application brought by 15 residents whose shacks had been demolished on 28 March.
In his judgement, he cited a lack of evidence to support their claims that they had lived at Erf 3162 in 7de Laan for more than three years when the City ordered their eviction and demolished their shacks.
The City had argued that it had stopped an illegal occupation that was in progress and that none of the applicants had lived there before, and for that reason a court order was not required.
The judge did include an instruction to the City Police to return all confiscated building materials, including corrugated-iron sheets and wooden poles, to the applicants.
Part A of the application had asked for an order interdicting the City Police and Windhoek municipality from proceeding with evictions and demolitions without a court order, pending a review of the actions and decision of the City and the City Police under Part B.
Part A also asked for an order directing the City to restore the homes that had been demolished.
Part B of the application was to review the actions of the City, and asking that their actions be declared unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.
The judge postponed Part B of the case until to 26 April for a status hearing.
Little supporting evidence
Ueitele yesterday said the main issue the court had to consider was the dispute about the length of occupation of the residents at 7de Laan.
Apart from Christine Likuwa, the first applicant, Judge Ueitele said that none of the other 14 applicants “placed evidence before this court as to when exactly they came to occupy Erf 3162.”
Neither did the applicants dispute the version put forward by the City officials, “thus casting serious doubts on their version that they have been in occupation on Erf 3162 for a period of more than three years.”
The judge said because of the lack of supporting evidence for their claims he was bound to accept the version of the City officials.
“The facts put up by the City and City Police cannot be said to be far-fetched, those facts do, in my view, cast serious doubts on the version put up by Ms Likuwa and she can therefore not succeed.”
JANA-MARI SMITH
In his judgement, released yesterday afternoon, Judge Shafimana Ueitele said that having dismissed their application, primarily due to a lack of evidence to support their claims of long-term occupation before the evictions, it was important to note that “we as a country are facing extremely serious problems relating to poverty, unemployment and more importantly housing”.
He cautioned however that “these intolerable living conditions cannot be a licence to impel people to resort to land grabbing. Self-help of this kind cannot and must not be tolerated.”
The judge concluded his judgement by saying that “I want to record that this case shows the desperation of people living in deplorable conditions in the city.”
Ueitele said the municipality was obliged to “act positively to ameliorate these conditions” and was under an obligation to provide access to urban land to its inhabitants.
He warned however that the obligation to provide land “does not mean and must never be interpreted to mean that conditions of poverty and landlessness are a license to land grabbing aimed at coercing the City into making land available.”
Citing a Supreme Court judgement, Ueitele said that “the destruction of a home and the removal of its contents have grave implications for the people concerned. Homes are the centre of people's lives.”
Appeal on the cards
The Affirmative Reposition (AR) announced yesterday that they were likely to appeal the judgement in which the 15 7de Laan homeowners were ordered to vacate their homes by no later than 28 April.
“We approached the court in search of justice. Our struggle is not confined to the court but we are merely doing whatever we can to restore the dignity of our people with the little we have,” the AR said in a statement yesterday afternoon.
The AR said that following appeal, the “judgement of today will be temporarily suspended and be of no effect immediately. The matter will then proceed to the Supreme Court.”
Yesterday, Judge Shafimana Ueitele dismissed part A of the urgent application brought by 15 residents whose shacks had been demolished on 28 March.
In his judgement, he cited a lack of evidence to support their claims that they had lived at Erf 3162 in 7de Laan for more than three years when the City ordered their eviction and demolished their shacks.
The City had argued that it had stopped an illegal occupation that was in progress and that none of the applicants had lived there before, and for that reason a court order was not required.
The judge did include an instruction to the City Police to return all confiscated building materials, including corrugated-iron sheets and wooden poles, to the applicants.
Part A of the application had asked for an order interdicting the City Police and Windhoek municipality from proceeding with evictions and demolitions without a court order, pending a review of the actions and decision of the City and the City Police under Part B.
Part A also asked for an order directing the City to restore the homes that had been demolished.
Part B of the application was to review the actions of the City, and asking that their actions be declared unlawful, unconstitutional and invalid.
The judge postponed Part B of the case until to 26 April for a status hearing.
Little supporting evidence
Ueitele yesterday said the main issue the court had to consider was the dispute about the length of occupation of the residents at 7de Laan.
Apart from Christine Likuwa, the first applicant, Judge Ueitele said that none of the other 14 applicants “placed evidence before this court as to when exactly they came to occupy Erf 3162.”
Neither did the applicants dispute the version put forward by the City officials, “thus casting serious doubts on their version that they have been in occupation on Erf 3162 for a period of more than three years.”
The judge said because of the lack of supporting evidence for their claims he was bound to accept the version of the City officials.
“The facts put up by the City and City Police cannot be said to be far-fetched, those facts do, in my view, cast serious doubts on the version put up by Ms Likuwa and she can therefore not succeed.”
JANA-MARI SMITH
Comments
Namibian Sun
No comments have been left on this article