By Victor Mukwevho and Bernard Chiguvare
The stalemate between Thulamela Municipality and land occupiers in Thohoyandou Block F continues. For the time being, the residents who had built illegal structures on the land will not be evicted. However, they may not build any new structures or develop their houses while the appeal is pending.
The feud between the municipality and the land occupiers has been going on for at least five years. In February 2019, Judge Nare Frans Kgomo granted Thulamela Municipality an interdict that would have allowed them to evict the people who had built structures on the municipality's land. Judge Kgomo agreed that these people were unlawful occupiers of the sites and ordered them to demolish the structures within 60 days. Should they fail to do so, the sheriff of the court would be authorised to demolish the structures and evict the people.
In the judge's ruling, he outlined the background to the feud, which started before 2016 when people erected illegal structures on municipal land. The structures were built on pieces of vacant land, not far from the town centre and conveniently close to the big shopping centres. Some of these pieces of land, however, had been earmarked for other purposes, while some were below the historic flood lines.
Around September 2016, some of the illegal occupiers of the land started a process of demarcation, seemingly out of frustration with the municipality's refusal to sell them sites. Several structures were built without any building plans' being submitted and without services' being connected, such as sewage lines and electricity.
Thulamela Municipality seemingly tried to engage in talks with the occupiers of the land to find solutions. However, during this time, the municipality also sold pieces of land to other developers. In 2019, a legal process was initiated to try and evict the illegal land occupiers.
In Judge Kgomo's ruling, he criticised the land occupiers for not providing information to the court that might have explained why they needed land and supported their argument that they should not be evicted. The land occupiers offered no proof of being impoverished or in special need of land.
"The applicant [municipality] … has identified land from its total parcelling of land where the respondents may resettle at reasonable prices," he said. He added that the court should avoid a situation where the unlawful occupiers would be rendered homeless.
The judge pointed out that the municipality had gone the extra mile to try and find a solution to the problem. It even tasked a town planner with conducting a survey and demarcating sites with the aim of offering the illegal occupiers an opportunity to buy the sites. This process was, however, interrupted by the land occupiers and never completed.
"It is the finding of this Court that the applicant has done all that is humanly possible to engage the respondents about the unwiseness of their unlawful occupation of the land. Children's playgrounds, sporting facility locations, business premises, prospective locations have been wantonly occupied by the respondents. Their bravado in the face of concerted efforts by the Municipality to engage them is encouraging other people to still invade the area. That is lawlessness of the highest order," the ruling reads.
Despite the court interdict, the illegal occupiers were not evicted. The reason for this is not very clear, but one might assume that the Covid-19 restrictions that came into place a few months later delayed the implementation of the court order. The land occupiers also indicated that they intended to appeal the judge's decision.
Only on 19 September this year was leave for appeal granted in the Limpopo High Court. The applicants (the land occupiers) were given 14 days to file their heads of argument.
The permission to appeal against the interdict came as quite a relief to residents of Maholoni section in Block F in Thohoyandou. They were anxiously waiting and fearing that bulldozers would very soon be sent in to flatten their homes.
According to the chairperson of the Block F Civic Association, Mr Mboniseni Phanuel Ndou, the residents had tried unsuccessfully on numerous occasions to obtain the necessary permission to occupy the land. According to the municipality, the land they occupied had been earmarked to become a public park.
Ndou and some of the residents said that one of the reasons they had gone ahead and built their houses in the area without permission was that foreign business owners who were operating in local towns had been granted permission to build houses on the same land, while the local residents had been denied this privilege. They claimed that some of these foreigners had even built a church in the area. The municipality wanted to take them, the local residents, to court, but not the foreigners, they complained.
Ndou added that even though the municipal offices were situated just 100 meters or so from the area in question, they [municipality] had never tried to stop the residents from building their houses there. "They saw us building there, and now, after two years, they threaten to evict us from the area," he said.
One of the residents who occupy this land, Miss Ruth Tshikhathi, who is a pensioner, said that she was relieved that they had been granted leave to appeal the judgment. "I have full confidence in advocates T.P. Matodzi and Matodzi Mulovhedzi, who are helping us on this case. I have five kids and seven grandkids who all live with me. Where will we go if they demolish this house? I am on my knees, begging those who are administering this municipality to please have mercy on us," she said.
Another resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said she would like the national government to intervene and investigate the issue of land ownership in Thohoyandou and the surrounding townships. "How is it possible for us to be told we have to move away from this area while those with money still continue to build in the same area?" she asked angrily.
Meanwhile, the spokesperson for Thulamela Local Municipality, Mr Nndwamato Tshiila, reiterated that the municipality could not comment while the matter was before the court.