VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J Occupiers with temporary accommodation on a date linked to the date of eviction. The Occupiers‘ submissions in support of a structural interdict against the City in their written argument were neither persuasive, nor seriously pursued during oral argument. In this respect the cross-appeal cannot succeed. [102] The City mounted a wide-ranging attack against the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal. We have found most of its criticisms unpersuasive. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal is strongly reasoned. There is no reason not to confirm its conclusions in all material respects. Costs [103] The City has lost its appeal to this Court. The eviction order that the Supreme Court of Appeal granted in favour of Blue Moonlight has not been upset. It was the City‘s stance in the matter that brought Blue Moonlight to this Court. It was entitled to be heard. The Occupiers have been partially successful in their cross-appeal. They have ensured that they will not be evicted before the City provides them with temporary accommodation. It follows that the City must pay the costs of Blue Moonlight and the Occupiers in this Court. There is no need to interfere with the costs order of the Supreme Court of Appeal. Order [104] The following is ordered: (a) The application for leave to appeal is granted. 48