VAN DER WESTHUIZEN J
[31] Before this Court, Blue Moonlight submits that an eviction may be delayed on
equitable grounds, but that an indefinite delay would amount to an arbitrary
deprivation of property in violation of section 25(1) of the Constitution.
The
provisions of PIE are not designed to allow for the expropriation of land.27 A private
owner has no obligation to provide free housing.
[32] The Occupiers submit that it would not be just and equitable to grant an
eviction order, if the order would result in homelessness.28 The City notes that the
eviction is sought at the instance of the property owner, not at its own instance. It also
notes that Blue Moonlight is entitled to eviction if PIE is complied with, but
emphasises that the City cannot be held responsible for providing accommodation to
all people who are evicted by private landowners.
[33] In determining whether the eviction of the Occupiers will be just and equitable,
it is necessary to address—
27
(a)
the rights of the owner in a constitutional and PIE era;
(b)
the obligations of the City to provide accommodation;
(c)
the sufficiency of the City‘s resources;
(d)
the constitutionality of the City‘s emergency housing policy; and
See Ndlovu v Ngcobo; Bekker and Another v Jika 2003 (1) SA 113 (SCA) at 17-8.
28
Citing PE Municipality above n 12 at para 28; Modderfontein above n 11 at para 26; and Occupiers, Shulana
Court, 11 Hendon Road, Yeoville, Johannesburg v Steele 2010 (9) BCLR 911 (SCA) at para 16.
16