Court orders District Six families to vacate historic cottages by February 28
The Cape Town Magistrate’s Court has ordered five District Six families to vacate Searle Street cottages after finding occupation unlawful, with eviction set for late February if they fail to leave voluntarily.
Image: Ayanda Ndamane/Independent Newspapers
Five District Six families living in Victorian-era cottages in Searle Street, Woodstock, have been ordered by the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court to vacate the properties by February 28, after the court ruled that their continued occupation is unlawful and that eviction is just and equitable.
In a judgment delivered in December, Magistrate Juan de Pontes found that Ettenne du Toit, the registered owner of the properties, is entitled to regain possession under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). The families ultimately conceded that they had no lawful right to occupy the cottages, leaving the court to determine whether eviction would be fair in light of their personal circumstances.
Du Toit bought the Searle Street properties in September 2014 from the Sisters of the Holy Cross for R2.45 million. The court noted that notices cancelling any alleged rights of occupation had been issued, yet the families remained in occupation for several years while the matter was delayed by opposition and postponements.
In assessing whether eviction would result in homelessness, the court considered detailed evidence on the occupants’ ages, income, employment status and social circumstances. Reports from the City of Cape Town and the Department of Social Development, including housing needs assessments and social worker reports, were placed before the court.
While acknowledging that some occupants are elderly and financially vulnerable, the court found that homelessness had not been established on the evidence. Addressing arguments that eviction automatically triggers an obligation on the City to provide accommodation, Magistrate de Pontes stated: “The mere contention of homelessness automatically triggers the obligation of the local authority to provide temporary emergency accommodation is not correct.”
The court stressed that constitutional protections do not entitle unlawful occupiers to remain indefinitely on private property, nor do they impose a permanent housing obligation on a private landowner. It found that the City had assessed the families and offered temporary emergency accommodation to those who qualified and accepted such assistance.
Responding to media enquiries, the City said the matter concerns a private eviction. “As is routine for private eviction matters where emergency housing is requested, the City filed a housing report, setting out what it can and cannot provide in terms of emergency housing to these occupants as dictated by the current demand and supply of land and budget for this purpose,” it said.
The City said it had engaged with the occupants and offered assistance in sourcing social housing and accommodation for the elderly where they qualify. It added that there is currently no vacant emergency housing available in District Six, where most state-owned land is reserved for land restitution beneficiaries, but confirmed it would honour its undertakings made to the court.
The court ordered the first to sixth respondents to vacate the cottages by February 28, 2026, failing which the sheriff is authorised to carry out the eviction on March 6, 2026. The City was directed to provide temporary emergency accommodation to qualifying occupants, while the Department of Social Development was ordered to assist with alternative accommodation where appropriate. Costs were awarded jointly and severally against the respondents, excluding the City.
According to the 21-page court papers, the respondents (namely) the occupants attorneys were acting pro bono. "A cost order on a punitive scale against them will have chilling effect on the institution of pro bono representation of deserving members of the public," the papers read.
It further stated that the matter was first placed on the court roll in October 2022, exploring a three year legal battle, in which it was opposed, postponed and unopposed later leading to a hearing in March 2025.
Get your news on the go, click here to join the Cape Argus News WhatsApp channel.
Cape Argus
Related Topics: