- The City of Johannesburg must rebuild demolished shelters or pay R1500 per shack to affected residents.
- The Supreme Court of Appeal ruled that the July 2023 evictions in Rabie Ridge were unlawful and unconstitutional.
- Judges ruled that the City’s reliance on a 2017 interdict could not override constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has ordered the City of Johannesburg to either reconstruct the informal shelters it demolished in Rabie Ridge or pay R1500 per shack to help residents rebuild.
The unanimous ruling, delivered on 20 October 2025, follows the City’s failed attempt to appeal a High Court judgment that had declared its July 2023 actions unlawful and unconstitutional.
Nearly 300 residents were affected when City officials, accompanied by private security, tore down makeshift homes on Allandale Farm, which is municipal land set aside for low-cost housing. The demolitions occurred without a court order and without engaging with the people living there.
Justice G Goosen, writing for the court, rejected the City’s claim that it had not evicted anyone. He pointed to photographic evidence submitted by the residents that showed piles of building materials and displaced individuals with their belongings.
“These images,” Goosen wrote, “are difficult to reconcile with the claim…that no action was taken to demolish established shelters and structures.” The court found that the City’s actions amounted to eviction, and that the affected residents were indeed occupying the land.
No shelter behind old orders
The City argued that its actions were authorised by a 2017 court order issued by Judge Sutherland, which allowed preventative measures against land invasions. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that this order did not allow evictions, nor did it apply to people already living on the land.
“The order does not serve to negate or override statutory and constitutional protections afforded to persons in the position of the respondents,” Justice Goosen wrote. He described the City’s interpretation of the order as “extraordinary,” noting that it could not justify the demolitions.
The court also criticised the use of blanket interdicts against unnamed individuals, referencing the Constitutional Court’s decision in Zulu v eThekwini Municipality. Quoting Justice van der Westhuizen’s minority opinion, Justice Goosen reminded the City that “an order of this nature deprives unlawful occupiers of rights enshrined in the Constitution and recalls a time when the destitute and the landless were considered unworthy of a hearing before they were unceremoniously removed.”
Restoration is not optional
The High Court had ordered the City to restore the demolished shelters within 72 hours or pay R1500 per shack to help residents rebuild. The City argued that this amounted to constitutional damages, which had not been requested. But the Supreme Court dismissed that argument.
Quoting the High Court directly, Judge Goosen wrote, “The order for the payment of this money is part of the order of restoration and should not be viewed as damages; it is part of the duty of restoration.”
The payment is only required if the City cannot rebuild the shelters itself, and only for residents who still need them. The judgment makes it clear that restoration is not a gesture; it is a legal obligation.
“Since the City premised its defense of the application upon the Judge Sutherland order,” Goosen concluded, “it follows that the City enjoys no reasonable prospects of overturning the order of the high court on appeal.”
Get your news on the go. Clickhereto follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
