Judge Wilson’s ruling granted interim relief restoring the evicted individuals and their families to the N12 Settlement, interdicted the City of Ekurhuleni and its officials from further demolitions without a court order. In addition, it directed the Municipality to erect temporary structures by 30 June 2026 to house the displaced occupiers. The Court further retained supervisory jurisdiction, requiring the Executive Mayor and City Manager to report back on progress by 15 July 2026.

In his judgment, Judge Wilson found that the respondents had committed “a series of flagrant violations of the occupiers’ constitutional rights,” acting contrary to section 26(3) of the Constitution, which prohibits evictions without a court order. The Court noted that the Municipality’s conduct was reminiscent of the unlawful actions condemned by the Constitutional Court in Pheko v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (2012) and agreed that the demolitions were “redolent of the Apartheid regime.” Many of the affected residents had previously been relocated to the N12 Settlement following the Constitutional Court’s landmark decision in Pheko which had already affirmed their rights against unlawful evictions. The recurrence of unlawful demolitions against the same community highlights the municipality's blatant disregard for constitutional orders and protections.

The matter was brought by the Commission and the residents on an urgent basis in terms of section 13 (3) (b) of the South African Human Rights Commission Act 40 of 2023 which empowers the Commission to bring proceedings in its own name and on behalf of a group of persons. This judgement is a significant affirmation of the constitutional protections enshrined in section 26 (3) of the Constitution and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act). The PIE Act exists to safeguard vulnerable members of society from arbitrary evictions and demolitions, and the Court’s ruling underscores the importance of judicial oversight in protecting dignity, security, and access to adequate housing.

Importantly, the High Court’s judgement is in line with the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in the case of City of Cape Town v South African Human Rights Commission and Others 2024 (5) SA 368 (SCA), which reinforced that once unlawful occupiers establish possession (even minimally), municipalities must seek court orders under the PIE Act or other remedies. The SCA also emphasised that evictions and demolitions without judicial oversight violate constitutional rights to dignity, housing, and protection against arbitrary eviction.

The Commission reiterates its commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable communities, promoting respect for human dignity, and ensuring that the state acts within the bounds of the law. The Commission will proceed with Part B of its application and will monitor the implementation of the order and engage with relevant stakeholders to ensure compliance and safeguard the rights of the affected community.

ENDS

ISSUED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION