Bompas eviction: who bears the cost of alternative accommodation?

Bompas Road, Dunkeld West, made headlines last Tuesday when the Red Ants dumped dozens of displaced people and their meagre possessions on number 21’s pavement.

Heavy machinery flattened some derelict structures before a gap in the high wall was sealed with a double layer of bricks. However, that didn’t keep out all evictees.

By 7pm on Friday, a chunk of new brickwork had been knocked down. People who had been kicked out were back, with court permission.

Human rights lawyers had persuaded the High Court in Johannesburg that the document used by the sheriff was not a valid order. Tuesday’s eviction and Friday’s reversal evoked strong opposing views from folks who are passionate about human rights, property rights and much else.

ALSO READ: Joburg, please expropriate these properties

Neither side can claim lasting victory. Nor will they do so after the 3 May return date for a ruling on the original court order used by the sheriff.

As the ward councillor, who has been trying since March 2017 to get the city to resolve 21 Bompas, I haven’t given up hope for a lasting, just outcome.

Those who cheered the eviction cannot ignore the court finding. I have read the order. It prevents respondents “from renting, selling, authorising, directing and/or leading” others into “invading, hijacking, clearing, demarcating stands and portions” of the property.

Respondents are also interdicted from “continuing with erecting structures, clearing land and making any further developments”. There is no direct mention of eviction. However, the sheriff is “authorised to remove all respondents found erecting, clearing and or developing” the owner’s land.

It is possible that eviction was deliberately not mentioned, in order to avoid the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act of 1998 (PIE). Yet 21 Bompas is unlikely to be resolved without a PIE-compliant eviction order which takes into account what is going to happen to the occupants.

After Friday’s ruling, some residents complain that private property isn’t protected by law. I disagree. When used properly, the system can allow for a lawful, humane eviction which takes into account the rights of owners, occupants and affected neighbours.

But who bears the burden of alternative accommodation?

Lucky Sindane, on behalf of the city’s Group Forensic Investigation Service, said in 2020: “It is the constitutional obligation of the applicant who wants to evict any occupants to provide alternative accommodation.”

However, over the weekend, Khululiwe Bhengu, a human rights lawyer in the Bompas case, gave a different view on eNCA. She said the city would be constitutionally obliged to offer temporary alternative accommodation.

Perhaps the owner’s lawyers should seek a PIE-compliant eviction order that directs the city, not the owner, to deal with temporary accommodation for occupants (as distinct from illegal invaders and hijackers).

In this way, concerns about private property owners’ rights can be answered, as can the concerns of human rights activists.

A clear outcome will help deal with other cases across the city. We need clarity.