Plastic View not to be sold
A piece of prime property with a reserve price tag of R350 million in the east of Pretoria on which the notorious Plastic View Squatter camp is situated, will be removed from the list of Tshwane metro properties to be sold on auction on Tuesday.
Tshwanwe metro announced the land release programme months ago, giving details of some 80 properties to be sold on public auction to raise funds for infrastructure development and other housing needs of the poor in the metro.
The controversial Plastic View is situated on one of the properties, but in its court papers the metro on Monday gave the assurance that the squatters would have right of tenure on the land until such time as they are relocated to an adjacent property one kilometre away.
The metro argued before court that the legal and proper relocation of the squatters was a condition of sale of the land and that whoever bought the land had to adhere to the conditions.
“If the residents of Woodlane are not relocated within 54 weeks of the sale, the metro would by the land back from the buyer,” the court heard.
The city maintained it had financial problems and urgently needed the income from the properties.
Phatudi said Plastic View had been the subject of a number of court cases, including two judgments by the Supreme Court of Appeal which established the occupancy rights of the residents.
There are two adjacent properties which had been scheduled for auction and while the one will not go under the hammer, the other will.
The applicants contended that there was no innovative method of resolving matter and in fact, the metro had not even informed them that the land was earmarked for public auction. Their engagement with city did not bear fruit.
The judge ruled there was no doubt that the applicants had a legal right to the property – a right entrenched by two previous court
rulings.
He added that the applicants had an apprehension of irreparable harm and it was common cause that should the mandate by The High Street Auction Company to auction the property proceed, the applicants would have no certainty of what would happen to them should the property be sold to another party without first being assured of their tenure.
“In my view, the sale of the property before relocation of the applicants is the invasion of the applicants’ rights and their legitimate expectation to be consulted prior to the sale or development has been embarked upon,” the judge ruled.
He said the occupation of the land by a developer constituted proof of a reasonable apprehension of injury to applicants’ rights.
The judge said Tshwane metro could not persuade him that there was another remedy available at the applicants’ disposal, other than that they would not be evicted from the area and that the deed of sale ensures non-eviction.
“In my view, the only ordinary remedy at the applicant’s disposal which provides them with the necessary protection is an interdict pending the finalisation of a review.
“I am however not persuaded to grant interdict in respect of all properties within the jurisdiction area of the municipality. It is not clear from papers and submissions by the applicants that they aree acting in the interest of the public at large in this instance,” the judge ruled.
For free breaking and community news, visit Rekord’s websites:
For more news and interesting articles, like Rekord on Facebook or follow us on Twitter.
- We have exciting news! We’re offering a free alert to help you always be in the loop. Send an email with the word ‘Subscribe’ to breakingnews@rekord.co.za to receive your free daily breaking news update.
