Case Law[2023] ZAWCHC 162South Africa
Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Bumina and Others (3852/2022; 3855/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 162 (10 July 2023)
High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)
10 July 2023
Judgment
begin wrapper
begin container
begin header
begin slogan-floater
end slogan-floater
- About SAFLII
About SAFLII
- Databases
Databases
- Search
Search
- Terms of Use
Terms of Use
- RSS Feeds
RSS Feeds
end header
begin main
begin center
# South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAWCHC 162
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Bumina and Others (3852/2022; 3855/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 162 (10 July 2023)
Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Bumina and Others (3852/2022; 3855/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 162 (10 July 2023)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2023_162.html
sino date 10 July 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION,
CAPE TOWN
Case no. 3852/2022
In
the matter between:
VACATION
IMPORT (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
DOUDOU
M BUMINA
First
Respondent
and
three other respondents
Second,
Third and Fourth Respondents
and
Case
no. 3855/2022
In
the matter between:
VACATION
IMPORT (PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
ALAIN
KALAMBAYI NGALEKA
First
Respondent
and
three other respondents
Second,
Third and Fourth Respondents
JUDGMENT
Delivered by email on
10 July 2023
BINNS-WARD J:
[1]
Judgment was delivered in these two
applications on 3 March 2023, at which stage an order was made in
each matter in the following
terms:
1.
To the extent necessary, the respondents’
non-compliance with the timetable set out in the orders made by
Saldanha J
on 14 June 2022 is condoned.
2.
The counterapplications in case no. 3852/22
and case no. 3855/22 are dismissed.
3.
The applications for eviction in case no.s
3852/22 and 3855/22 are postponed for later determination in terms of
the framework set
out below, in paragraphs 4 to 9 of this order.
4.
The City of Cape Town is directed to
investigate the apparent rights and needs of the unlawful occupiers
of the properties in issue
in case no.s 3852/22 and 3855/22 with
special reference to those of any of the occupiers who are elderly,
children, disabled persons,
or women heading households and to report
thereon to this court before
Wednesday,
26 April 2023
. Without derogation
from the generality of the aforegoing, the report must address
whether land can reasonably be made available
by the municipality for
the relocation of any the unlawful occupiers who cannot reasonably
provide for their own alternative accommodation.
5.
The applicant is directed to procure the
service of this order together with a copy of this judgment on the
City of Cape Town at
the office of the City Manager by no later than
13 March 2023
and
thereafter to promptly file proof of service at the office of the
presiding Judge’s registrar.
6.
The applicant is afforded until
4
May 2023
to deliver any written
submissions it may wish to on the content of the City’s report.
7.
The occupier-respondents are afforded until
11 May 2023
to deliver any written submissions they may wish to on the content of
the City’s report.
8.
The written submissions referred to in
paragraph 6 and 7 shall be served at the addresses of respective
parties’ attorneys
of record and at the office of the presiding
Judge’s registrar.
9.
Determinative orders in respect of the
applications for eviction and the incidence of costs in those
applications and the counterapplications
will be made on a date to be
advised after the court has considered the City’s report and
any written submissions delivered
in terms of paragraphs 6 and 7.
The judgment is listed on
SAFLII
sub nom. Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Bumina and
Others; Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Ngaleka and Others
[2023]
ZAWCHC 44
(3 March 2023).
[2]
The City of Cape Town has filed reports in
both matters. It is evident from those reports, which, apart
from the particularity
provided therein about the occupants of the
respective properties, are in identical terms, that it is unlikely
that the respondents
or the persons occupying the properties under
them would be able to afford to rent alternative accommodation.
The City has
indicated that in each case the heads of the respective
households can be provided with emergency shelter material, which
allows
for a structure to be constructed that would be in compliance
with the local authority’s Emergency Housing Code.
[3]
It is evident that the City will provide
assistance in the form described only after the respective heads of
households have secured
a site for the construction of the emergency
shelter and obtained an affidavit from the owner thereof, whose
identity must be vouched
by a title deed or rates account, confirming
that it consents to the erection of the structure and that the ‘owner
will comply
with the City’s building and planning by-laws in
the construction of the structure’.
[4]
Neither the applicant nor the
occupier-respondents have availed of the opportunity afforded in
terms of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the
order made on 3 March 2023 to make
written submissions on the content of the reports rendered by the
City. There is moreover
nothing before the court to confirm
that a copy of the City’s reports were provided to the
respective respondents or their
legal representatives.
[5]
The City’s reports in any event fall
short of giving the court the information it requires for the
purposes of s 4(7)
of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from
and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998. In particular,
notwithstanding
the express direction contained in paragraph 4 of the
orders made on 3 March 2023, the reports do not give any indication
whether
land can reasonably be made available by the municipality or
other organ of state for the relocation of the unlawful occupiers;
cf.
Grobler v Phillips and Others
[2022] ZACC 32
(20 September
2022); 2023 (1) SA 321
(CC) at
para. 33 and 37. It seems to me that this is an especially
important question in circumstances where it is apparent
that there
is real danger that an eviction order without a realistic prospect of
alternative accommodation would render the unlawful
occupiers
homeless.
[6]
It must be said that the terms of the
City’s offer of alternative accommodation appear to me, prima
facie, not to offer a
realistic solution to the potential of the
respondents being rendered homeless by an eviction order. It is
not clear to me
how the construction of emergency shelters could be
effected on privately owned land in a manner consistent with the
City’s
building and planning laws. Which parts of the
municipal area, if any, I ask myself, are appropriately zoned for
such purposes?
What evidence is there that there are property
owners agreeable to the erection of emergency shelters on their land,
and free of
consideration too? The report gives no indication of the
feasibility of anyone being able to effectively avail of the
assistance
that the City has indicated it is willing to provide.
[7]
The inadequacy of the information provided
in the City’s reports and the unanswered questions raised by
the terms of the assistance
it has indicated that it is able to offer
have left me unable at this stage, without more, to form the required
opinion that it
would be just and equitable to grant an order for the
respondents’ eviction. If the applicant is unable to
obtain suitably
improved reports from the City, it seems to me that
it may become necessary for it to subpoena the head of the relevant
department
to give oral evidence.
[8]
I am unfortunately unavailable for the rest
of this year to continue with the matters, being on vacational leave
until the end of
September, and thereafter sitting in a different
court until the end of the fourth term. I shall thereafter be
available
for hearings in this court only on a very limited basis at
the beginning of the first term of 2024 prior to my retirement in
mid-February.
In the circumstances, I propose to further
postpone the applications to enable the concerns identified in this
judgment to be addressed
ahead of a hearing in open court on Monday,
29 January 2024.
[9]
An order will issue in the following terms:
1.
The applications are postponed for further
hearing on Monday,
29 January 2024
at 10h00 or so soon thereafter as the matters may be called.
2.
The City of Cape Town is directed by no
later than
30 September 2023
to furnish the applicant’s attorneys of record with
supplementary reports in both matters, which supplementary reports
must
comprehensively address the issues identified in this judgment
concerning the insufficiency of information in the reports rendered
by the City in terms of paragraph 4 of the orders made in terms of
the judgment of this court delivered on 3 March 2023.
3.
The applicant’s attorneys of record
are directed to procure the service of this order together with a
copy of this judgment
on the City of Cape Town at the office of the
City Manager by no later than
31 July
2023
, and thereafter to promptly file
proof of service at the office of the presiding Judge’s
registrar.
4.
The applicant’s attorneys of record
are directed, within 5 days of receiving the City’s
supplementary report, to provide
a copy thereof to the
occupier-respondents or their legal representatives in each matter
and thereafter to promptly file proof
of service at the office of the
presiding Judge’s registrar.
5.
In the event that it appears to the
applicant’s attorneys that the City’s supplementary
reports do not adequately address
the concerns raised in this
judgment, or in the event that the City fails to comply with the
provisions of paragraph 2 of this
order, they are directed, by no
later than
31 October 2023
,
to subpoena the responsible official of the City of Cape Town, or, if
such cannot be identified, the City Manager, to appear in
person at
the hearing on 29 January 2024 and to provide such functionary with a
letter of notice succinctly setting forth the reasons
why he or she
has been subpoenaed in terms of this order.
6.
Any issues as to costs shall further stand
over for determination pursuant to the hearing on 29 January 2024.
A.G. BINNS-WARD
Judge of the High
Court
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Bumina and Others; Vacation Import (Pty) Ltd v Ngaleka and Others (3852/2022;3855/2022) [2023] ZAWCHC 44 (3 March 2023)
[2023] ZAWCHC 44High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)100% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Beukman (17538/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 284 (11 July 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 284High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)97% similar
Imvusa Trading 1581 BK v Oudtshoorn Municipality (1708/2017) [2022] ZAWCHC 211 (20 October 2022)
[2022] ZAWCHC 211High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)97% similar
South African Legal Practice Council v Engelbrecht (23138/2023) [2025] ZAWCHC 468 (10 October 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 468High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)97% similar
Inospace Services (Pty) Ltd v Morris and Another (2025/124057) [2025] ZAWCHC 414 (8 September 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 414High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)97% similar