VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J waiting for housing, patiently, according to legally prescribed procedures. But, as the Supreme Court of Appeal found, queue jumping is not in issue in this case.89 The Occupiers do not claim permanent housing, ahead of anyone else in a queue. They have to wait in the queue or join it. What they ask is not to be excluded from the City‘s provision of temporary housing, even though their situation is an emergency under Chapter 12, simply because they are being evicted by a private landowner and not by the City. [94] This Court found that the occupiers in PE Municipality could not accurately be defined as ―queue jumpers‖, as they were a homeless community that had been evicted once and then found land to occupy with what they considered to be the owner‘s permission where they had been residing for eight years. 90 They did not deliberately invade land with an intention of disrupting the housing programme and placing themselves at the front of the queue. Here, too, the Occupiers did not invade the building. [95] As a result, I find that whereas differentiation between emergency housing needs and housing needs that do not constitute an emergency might well be reasonable, the differentiation the City‘s policy makes is not. To the extent that eviction may result in homelessness, it is of little relevance whether removal from one‘s home is at the instance of the City or a private property owner. The policy follows from the City‘s incorrect understanding of its obligations under Chapter 12 89 Above n 3 at para 55. 90 PE Municipality above n 12 at para 55. 44