City rebuilds, owner goes for eviction
Once the eviction application is granted, the dwellings currently constructed will be destroyed,” says lawyer
The land owner of the property on Great North Road where Max Informal Settlement is currently being rebuilt by the City of Ekurhuleni, has decided not to proceed with an application to interdict the metro from doing so.
According to the landowner’s attorney, Adrian Pearson from Pearson Attorneys, the decision was taken after obtaining a legal opinion from senior counsel.“However, we are proceeding with the eviction application for the removal of the occupiers from our client’s property, he said in a statement.
Rebuilding of shacks by the City of Ekurhuleni started on October 12.
Themba Gadebe, spokesperson for the metro, said the City was assisting residents of Max Informal Settlement to rebuild their burnt shacks. The shacks provided by the City are being built where the burnt settlement once stood.
A fire engulfed the settlement on September 30 and destroyed more than 400 shacks.
Gadebe said the affected residents are currently housed at a temporary shelter in Kempton Park and are being provided with humanitarian assistance, which includes donations from aid organisations.
“The shacks are being built in a blocked formation to allow for easy access of emergency vehicles and provision of basic services such as sanitation and water.”
Pearson says their understanding is that other community organisations are engaged in bringing an application against the City of Ekurhuleni for wasteful and fruitless expenditure of public funds due to the municipality building temporary dwellings on a private citizen’s land.
“Suitable alternative land has been identified directly opposite the existing informal settlement, which is public land. Naturally, once the eviction application is granted, the temporary dwellings currently constructed by Ekurhuleni Municipality will be destroyed.
“It seems bizarre that Ekurhuleni’s leaders approve and assist in the construction of dwellings on a private citizen’s land but refuse to make use of the public land available,” said Pearson.
“This stance is most concerning and prejudicial to private citizens’ rights and should serve as a warning to other private land owners.”
