Johannesburg faces R12.4m penalty over failed housing obligations

For several years, the City of Johannesburg ignored a court order that it had to give temporary housing to people evicted from Chung Hua Mansions on Jeppe Street, but this will cost the city dearly.

The court has now ruled that it had to pay nearly R12.4 million in damages to the owner of the building.

Changing Tides 74 Ltd secured an order in 2012 that the 247 men, women, and children who at the time lived in the so-called 11-storey hijacked building could be evicted. The city, however, had to first secure accommodation for these people.

Following the order at the time, the city confirmed that steps had already been taken to provide temporary housing. But nothing was done up until 2017, when the occupants were eventually evicted.

The building is said to have been converted into student accommodation, but the owner (the applicant) said it had lost out on three years' income, derived from the building, due to the city not acting on the court order.

The three years were calculated from the time that the court - including the Constitutional Court - had spoken the last word as the city tried in vain to appeal the order.

Changing Tides, meanwhile, now turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg - the court that issued the initial order against the city - to claim for its financial loss during this time.

In June 2012, the court ordered the eviction of the occupiers by no later than February 15, 2013, and ordered the City of Johannesburg to find them temporary accommodation no later than January 30, 2013.

The City of Johannesburg did not comply with the above order. As a result, the occupiers launched an enforcement application against the City of Johannesburg in December 2012. The city agreed then to comply with the order.

It, however, did not honour that agreement, and the owner had to continue housing the homeless. An appeal bid by the city to the Supreme Court of Appeal failed in 2015, and subsequently, the Concourt also turned down their appeal attempt.

Changing Tides, in its claim for damages, argued that the City of Johannesburg’s failure to comply with the initial court order not only caused it to suffer financial damages but was also wrongful and resulted in the infringement of the occupiers’ right to adequate housing.

According to the applicant, this left the occupiers to live in increasingly squalid and dangerous conditions. The city, in not complying with the order, also deprived Changing Tides of its property right.

The court was told that pending the final say from the Concourt, the owner could, for three years, not renovate the property and rent it out to students - as it planned to do.

They were only able to fulfil this right in February 2017, while it ought to have been able to do so in February 2014, Judge Dephny Mahosi was told.

The City of Johannesburg disputed that its conduct was wrongful and explained that it had no available resources to comply with the initial order. It said it worked within the parameters of its available resources to effect the policy and constitutional imperative against homelessness.

Changing Tides hit back and said the city lacked the political will to comply with its legal and constitutional duty. It said at best, its conduct was grossly reckless, to which the judge agreed.

“Its harm-causing conduct was wrongful, and the public policy and the legal convictions of the community, underpinned by the normative framework of the Constitution, dictate that it be held liable for the loss suffered by Changing Tides,” the judge said.

zelda.venter@inl.co.za