- The ruling affects approximately 76 people still living in three commercial buildings, including women-headed households and families with children.
- The City of Cape Town must assess individual households and provide temporary accommodation to those who qualify.
- The occupiers must vacate the properties by 31 March 2027, but qualifying households cannot be evicted before their allocated accommodation is available.
The High Court in the Western Cape has ordered the City of Cape Town to provide temporary emergency accommodation to qualifying households facing eviction from commercial buildings in the city centre.
The court found that unlawful occupation and the desire to live closer to employment opportunities cannot, on their own, justify refusing emergency shelter.
Judge Melanie Holderness delivered the judgment on 6 November 2026 in an eviction application brought by Hope Street Quarter (Pty) Ltd against 226 named occupiers and others occupying the properties without permission.
The dispute centred on five commercial properties in Cape Town. Two of these buildings had already been transferred to new owners and were unoccupied by the time judgment was delivered, so the application proceeded regarding the remaining three properties. The buildings are not designed or zoned for residential use and have no electricity or water connections.
The owner sought an eviction order after selling the buildings to third parties in October 2025, with an obligation to give vacant possession upon transfer. Its inability to do so formed the basis of the complaint. Approximately 76 people remained living in the three properties at the time of judgment.
Families facing homelessness
The Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre represented 38 of the occupiers, while most of the remaining respondents were unrepresented. The occupiers explained that they had moved into the vacant buildings out of desperation, seeking shelter, safety and access to employment opportunities in the city.
Some had come from the outskirts of Cape Town to reduce transport costs, while others had left previous homes due to violence, crime, extortion or job loss. Their legal representatives argued that eviction without alternative accommodation would leave some households homeless.
By 12 October 2026, the City had received personal circumstances questionnaires from 99 of the 226 named respondents. An assessment of the first 82 questionnaires showed that 37 occupiers lived with minor children, with 66 children in total.
Five occupiers were older than 60, and three households depended on social grants. Only 17 of the 82 respondents had some form of employment. The households represented by Ndifuna Ukwazi were mostly headed by women and included 26 minor children. Seventeen of those children attended schools in the city centre and surrounding areas.
Some occupiers had been on the City’s housing database for years, with one registered since 2001. The City initially argued that the circumstances surrounding the occupation weighed against providing emergency accommodation. It maintained that some occupiers had left existing homes to move closer to work, effectively placing themselves ahead of others waiting for housing assistance.
The municipality also raised concerns about its limited resources, pointing to 367,592 applicants on its Housing Needs Register, 4,597 outstanding housing reports in private eviction matters and the lack of national funding for emergency housing since 2023. It further proposed excluding people earning more than R2,000 a month or those who might qualify for social housing.
Unlawful occupation not enough to refuse emergency shelter
Judge Holderness rejected the City’s main argument, finding that it confused the queue for permanent housing with the provision of temporary emergency accommodation.
The judge explained that temporary emergency accommodation is meant to address imminent homelessness. It does not provide a permanent housing opportunity or improve a person’s position on the City’s housing register.
The judgment found no evidence that the occupiers had moved into the buildings to disrupt the City’s housing programme or to seek preferential treatment. There had been no coordinated demand for housing before the occupation, and no evidence that rent had been collected. Instead, the reasons given by the occupiers related to their need for shelter, safety and proximity to employment.
Judge Holderness also pointed out that some people had left homes where they experienced violence, while others had lost rental accommodation after losing their jobs. The judge said treating all the occupiers as having chosen their circumstances would ignore their individual situations.
The judgment stated, “That a person in desperate economic circumstances moves closer to work cannot, without more, be a reason to deny emergency shelter.” The judge added that the State does not meet its constitutional duty if it ignores the link between where people live and where they earn a living.
The judgment also rejected the City’s proposed income threshold, finding that earning more than R2,000 a month could not automatically disqualify a household from emergency accommodation. The municipality must consider any evidence showing that a household cannot afford social housing or has no family home to return to.
Judge Holderness further acknowledged the City’s resource constraints but found that it had not shown that providing temporary accommodation to these households would take away from any identified person in greater need.
Wolwerivier accommodation found reasonable
The City offered 40 serviced sites at Wolwerivier for households facing homelessness, and 15 places in its Safe Spaces for people evicted from Tuin Plein Park. Wolwerivier is about 30km from the city centre. The occupiers opposed the proposed location, arguing that the distance would increase transport costs and make it difficult for families to keep access to employment and schools.
The judgment acknowledged that the location is far from where many occupiers work and where their children attend school. However, Judge Holderness found that the City had shown it had no emergency accommodation available in or near the inner city, and that its temporary relocation areas were full.
The judge therefore found the City’s offer of accommodation reasonable in the circumstances, especially since it would not prevent residents from leaving the accommodation to look for work or attend school. The City must also keep household members together when providing accommodation.
Eviction postponed until March 2027
The court ordered the occupiers to vacate the three remaining properties by 31 March 2027. If they do not, the Sheriff may carry out the evictions from 2 April 2027. However, the order makes provision for households that qualify for temporary emergency accommodation and accept the offer. The City must engage with the affected households, assess their circumstances and provide written decisions explaining whether they qualify.
Households refused accommodation will have an opportunity to approach the High Court to challenge the City’s decision. The municipality must make the accommodation available to qualifying households by 24 March 2027. The court also ordered that no qualifying household may be evicted before their accommodation is ready and written notice has been provided.
If more households qualify than there is capacity for, the City must report to the court on the shortfall and identify additional or alternative accommodation, taking into account the location of occupiers’ workplaces and schools. The court will retain supervision of the process and may issue further directions if the municipality cannot accommodate all who qualify.
School transport costs
The property owner also agreed to contribute towards the transport costs of children who will be relocated. Seventeen children currently attend schools in the city centre and surrounding areas. The owner initially offered R10,000 towards transport costs but increased the amount to R34,000 after a court directive. This amount will cover reasonable transport costs for the first school term after relocation.
The judge acknowledged concerns that travelling from Wolwerivier could require two taxis, costing about R120 for a daily return journey. There were also concerns that children would have to wake up at about 5am to reach school by 8am, which could affect their studies and rest.
The court nevertheless found that the increased transport contribution would help to ease the disruption to the children’s schooling. The Western Cape Department of Social Development must also submit a report by 12 February 2027 outlining what steps it intends to take to assist the minor children living at the properties.
There was no order as to costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
