Judgment reserved in Drakenstein emergency housing case
Court was “left to speculate” about the municipality’s emergency housing plan, argues advocate
- An advocate representing a Wellington farm dweller said that the court was “left to speculate” about the Drakenstein Municipality’s emergency housing plan.
- The purpose of the court hearing is to hold the municipality to account for the manner in which it implements its emergency housing.
- The municipality argued that a supervisory order from the court would be “untenable”.
- Judgment has been reserved until additional arguments have been submitted to the court.
It is unclear how much emergency housing the Drakenstein Municipality has created since 2012 — when it first acknowledged the escalating crisis of tens of thousands of farm workers facing eviction in the region. This was part of the argument raised by advocate Peter Hathorn, who represented a Wellington farm dweller in the Western Cape High Court on Monday.
Eric Lolo, who faces eviction, brought the case on behalf of himself and other evictees in the area. The purpose of the court hearing is to hold the municipality to account for the manner in which it implements its emergency housing plan.
Hathorn previously argued that the municipality breached its constitutional and statutory obligations by not taking reasonable steps to provide emergency housing for evicted farm dwellers living within its area of jurisdiction.
On Monday, Hathorn said that during the last hearing in August 2020, the court was “left to speculate” about these ‘emergency housing opportunities’.
Advocate Mark Greig, for the Drakenstein municipality, has argued that a supervisory role by the court over the municipality’s emergency housing plan would amount to judicial overreach.
This week, Greig said that a supervisory order from the court would be “untenable”. He said that the municipality gave the court “lengthy exposition” on projects it has done to address the crisis.
Greig told the court that “every municipality in this country would be non-compliant” if successful emergency housing meant that each and every person would be assisted.
Acting Judge Bernard Martin reserved judgment until both parties submitted additional arguments for consideration. He gave both legal teams a month to respond.
Martin said that it was necessary for the court to have “a clear criteria for success or failure” before ruling on the matter.
© 2021 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.