Darling Street residents await judgment in eviction case
Families facing eviction from 104 Darling Street – named Irene Grootboom House by some of its residents – are awaiting judgment from the Western Cape High Court.
The matter was heard by Judge Mokgoatji Dolamo on Tuesday, after two postponements.
The Department of Public Works and Infrastructure owns the building. It wants the residents, some of whom have lived there for 20 years, to be evicted because the building is in a state of disrepair and unsafe. The department has also put out a call for proposals for the future use of the building.
About 30 people live in the building itself, and there are also people living outside in an informal settlement.
The department applied to evict all residents. But some residents, represented by Ndifuna Ukwazi (NU), opposed the application.
After both NU and the department inspected the site, the department decided to seek an urgent application only against those living near an unsafe wall, and to ask for a postponement for the eviction application against the other residents.
But NU, in court papers, disagrees that an urgent eviction is justified. The wall can be “stabilised in the short term by removing and replacing the affected bricks and propping up the remaining bricks,” they argue.
The department says the whole building will have to be demolished due to its structural defects. NU disagrees, arguing that apart from ceiling boards that need to be replaced, “no other structural element of the building is indicated to be high risk”.
The City of Cape Town said in court papers that it is concerned about a “recycling operation” on the property. “The nature of the materials being processed, and the conditions in which they are stored, present an acute hazard to health,” said the municipality.
The municipality has offered alternative accommodation at the Haven Night Shelter “until further emergency accommodation can be found”.
But NU says of the 19 residents who qualify for the Haven Night Shelter, none accepted the offer because they do not want to be separated from their children, restrictions on entry and exit times conflict with their work schedules, and they are afraid of personal items being stolen.
The City said the offer must be seen in the “broader socio-economic context in which the City operates.”
Judgment was reserved.
