Sheffield squatters take prime land invasion matter to court

Shack dwellers occupying council-owned land in Sheffield are opposing KwaDukuza municipality’s Durban High Court bid to evict them, North Coast Courier reports.

KwaDukuza municipality has taken a hard line and last month was granted an eviction order to remove the land invaders living on the parcel of municipal land earmarked for a mixed-income housing project.

Despite this the Shack Dwellers Movement, Abahlali baseMjondolo, say they have “a valid claim to the land and/or alternatively labour tenancy rights”.

The social movement claims to have 80 000 members and over 80 branches countrywide.

Since 2018 the number of shacks at the informal settlement bordering an upmarket, multi-million rand development has continued to grow despite KDM demolishing about 50 shacks in February last year.

The informal settlement spreads across a green belt bordering the new Elaleni eco-estate, where plots have been sold for up to R3-million.

In 2018, KDM demolished 25 shacks believed to have been built for the purpose of renting them out.

Despite the municipality’s stance that illegal land occupation would not be tolerated and warning invaders of prosecution the informal settlement has continued to grow, from about 35 shacks to over 100 in the past year.

Speaking on behalf of the shack dwellers Bhekithemba Miya accused the municipality of putting profit before people.

“The Hlanganani branch of our movement, which is in Salt Rock near Shelly Beach, occupied a piece of land 11 years ago. More people joined the occupation in 2017. The KwaDukuza municipality has been attacking and evicting this community for some time now,” he said.

KwaDukuza municipal manager Nhlanhla Mdakane said in court papers that the developers of the adjacent property would not proceed any further with the development unless the “squatters” were relocated.

Their presence was affecting sales and had devalued the property.

Mdakane said the developers had employed local labour during construction.

“As time went by the workforce grew in numbers and gradually settled on the property upon which they erected their informal structures. The number of persons occupying the land is about 100. Of these, about 10 to 15 are children,” he said.

The municipal land has been earmarked for a R200 million mixed-income housing project to develop about 800 homes which will be funded by the Department of Human Settlements.

The project was forced to a halt as the illegal occupation of the land prevented the municipality from concluding the pre-feasibility study required for the EIA to determine the type of development to be undertaken.

Mdakane said the municipality’s main concern was to ensure that the informal dwellers were not left homeless and that it could provide an “alternative arrangement” on land at Mgigimbe, 30km away.

The statement that the shack dwellers had a “valid” right to the land was rejected by Mdakane. He said no land claim had been lodged with the Commission on Restitution of Land Rights making them illegal occupiers with “no bona fide defence to the eviction proceedings”.

“The occupation of the land is rather unhygienic and conditions are squalid. There are no sanitary services and/or water supply. For these purposes the respondents endeavour to conceal themselves behind the nearby bush so as to relieve themselves.”

Informal dweller Thulani Khanyile, said in court papers on behalf of the community that the municipality had not meaningfully engaged with the community in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 before instituting legal proceedings.

He argued the residents had a right to adequate housing and the municipality was obliged to tell the court what relief it could provide for the occupiers.

The matter was postponed.