- The High Court in Cape Town has ordered 161 people who were unlawfully occupying Transnet-owned properties in Woodstock and Salt River to leave by 30 September 2026.
- Judge Edwin Wille found that the area had become a hub for serious criminal activity and decided that eviction was just and fair, even though no emergency housing was offered.
- The court criticised the occupiers for not sharing their personal circumstances and also rebuked Home Affairs for failing to take part in a meaningful way during the case.
The High Court in Cape Town has ordered the eviction of 161 unlawful occupiers from Transnet-owned properties in Woodstock and Salt River. The court found that the occupation had become a base for criminal activity and that an eviction was just and equitable without requiring the City to provide emergency accommodation.
Judge Edwin Wille delivered the judgment on 21 July 2026 in the case of Transnet SOC Ltd v Those Persons Identified in Annexures F1 to F10 and Others. The case involved the unlawful occupiers, the City of Cape Town, and the Minister of Home Affairs as respondents.
Long-running occupation
Transnet approached the court seeking the eviction of people occupying several portions of its land adjacent to the N1 highway and near Cape Town's business districts. The occupation had continued for more than a decade.
The application originally concerned 282 occupiers but ultimately proceeded against 161 people, many of whom admitted they were undocumented foreign nationals. It was common cause that Transnet owned the land and that the occupation was unlawful.
Transnet argued that it required the properties for its commercial operations and future development and that the unlawful occupation prevented it from exercising its constitutional property rights.
City paints picture of escalating crime
The City opposed any order requiring it to provide emergency housing, placing extensive evidence before the court that the occupied land had become a base for opportunistic criminal activity. Its evidence included police statistics, CCTV footage, reports from law enforcement officers and an inspection of the area.
The City presented evidence of robberies, attacks on motorists, assaults on cyclists, cable theft, vehicle hijackings, drug offences, firearm offences and theft from vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the occupied land. It also relied on evidence that law enforcement had made 44 arrests in six months for offences including drug dealing, unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, robbery, assault, possession of stolen vehicles and resisting arrest.
The court also heard evidence that more than 100 attacks on cyclists had been recorded over eight months, including the fatal attack on an elderly cyclist. Judge Wille said the occupiers had failed to meaningfully challenge the City's evidence.
"The third respondent's version must be accepted and indeed cannot be rejected," he said after finding that the allegations of criminal activity had not been properly disputed.
The judge also referred to evidence gathered during an inspection in loco, where damaged infrastructure, stripped electrical cables, informal structures adjacent to the N1 highway, open manholes and tunnel networks allegedly used to store drugs and stolen property were observed. Some areas could not be inspected because law enforcement officials could not guarantee the safety of those attending the inspection.
Occupiers sought emergency housing
The occupiers argued that eviction would leave them homeless and that it could never be just and equitable to evict them unless emergency accommodation was first provided. Judge Wille rejected that argument.
"I do not understand this to be the law," he said, explaining that although the availability of alternative accommodation is an important consideration, it is only one factor in determining whether an eviction is just and equitable. "There cannot be an absolute right to alternative accommodation," the judge added.
He said accepting the occupiers' argument would effectively mean that no eviction could ever take place unless emergency housing had first been secured.
Failure to disclose personal circumstances
A significant factor against the occupiers was their failure to comply with an earlier court order directing them to provide detailed information about their personal circumstances.
Judge Wille said the lack of evidence prevented the court from properly assessing the justice and equity of refusing an eviction. "There is no detailed or specific evidence before me regarding the personal circumstances of the unlawful occupiers," he said.
The court found that while the City had taken reasonable steps to engage with the occupiers and obtain the required information, the occupiers continued to resist that process.
Judge Wille held that the City had acted "wisely and cautiously" by conducting surveys and attempting meaningful engagement, while the occupiers repeatedly objected to the process instead of providing the information required by the court.
City justified refusal to provide housing
The City told the court it faced severe resource constraints, that all existing emergency accommodation was fully occupied and that national funding for emergency housing had been substantially reduced.
It argued that relocating the occupiers onto other Transnet-owned land would unfairly allow them to bypass thousands of people who were lawfully waiting for housing. Judge Wille accepted that submission.
"I am not in favour of merely swapping one portion of the applicant's land for another portion of the applicant's land to house the first and second respondents in these circumstances," he said.
The judge found that the City's housing programme involved complex policy decisions and limited public resources, and that its explanation for refusing emergency accommodation was both reasonable and adequate.
The court also accepted that the City's Safe Spaces programme was designed for transient homeless people seeking rehabilitation and reintegration, not for permanent unlawful occupiers living in informal settlements. Occupiers remained free to use the programme voluntarily if they met its requirements.
Home Affairs criticised
Judge Wille was critical of the Minister of Home Affairs for choosing not to play an active role in proceedings although many occupiers had admitted they were undocumented foreign nationals. He said the department's response that it would only act if ordered by the court was "both disappointing and regrettable".
The judge held that a person's immigration status is relevant when considering claims for emergency housing and said Home Affairs should have provided direction on how undocumented foreign nationals should be dealt with in eviction proceedings.
Property rights and rule of law
In his judgment, Judge Wille said the occupation unlawfully deprived Transnet of its constitutional property rights while allowing occupiers to obtain priority access to land outside the lawful housing system.
He found that the occupiers had effectively "jumped the proverbial queue" for accommodation and said the rule of law could not permit people to take land unlawfully in the hope of securing housing ahead of others waiting lawfully.
The judge also found that the evidence suggested much of the occupation had been motivated not by proximity to employment opportunities but by the opportunity to conduct criminal activity from the properties.
Having considered all the circumstances, Judge Wille concluded that the City's refusal to provide emergency accommodation was reasonable and that the facts of the case justified an eviction order. "I agree, considering the peculiar circumstances of this case," he said in accepting the City's submissions.
Eviction order
The court ordered the unlawful occupiers to vacate the Transnet properties in Woodstock and Salt River by 30 September 2026.
If they fail to do so, the Sheriff of the High Court, assisted by the South African Police Service where necessary, is authorised to carry out the eviction and restore vacant possession of the properties to Transnet.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
