Judge rejects Ekurhuleni bid to rescind settlement
The City of Ekurhuleni’s bid to rescind a court-mandated settlement in which it would buy 16 private buildings taken over by illegal occupants has failed.
According to a GroundUp report, Gauteng High Court (Johannesburg) Acting Judge Amelia van der Merwe said: ‘It is unconscionable that the municipality now seeks to rescind the order.’
The agreement, signed in February 2020, brought to an end three years of legal wrangling between the city, the MEC for Human Settlements, the occupiers and the owners of the properties, referred to as the Rohlandt group.
In March 2019, the occupiers launched urgent court proceedings seeking to stay their eviction pending the provision of alternative accommodation by the MEC.
In a counter-application, the Rohlandt group sought an order declaring the failure of the municipality and the MEC to provide alternative accommodation to have infringed on their constitutional rights and those of the unlawful occupiers.
They also wanted the court to declare that they were entitled to sue both the municipality and the MEC for damages.
In February 2020, when the matter came before Judge Colin Lamont, the parties settled and the agreement was made an order of court.
The municipality was ordered to buy the 16 properties in question, the value to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Expropriation of Land Act.
The MEC was directed to provide provincial government funding for this.
However, a year later, the municipality said the attorney who acted for it had no authority to agree to the deal.
In considering the bona fides of the municipality, Van der Merwe noted that the Rohlandt group said that it had come to its attention that the city’s housing task team allegedly assisted the illegal occupation, and therefore the municipality was both author and orchestrator of the subsequent events.
The GroundUp report notes that the judge said this allegation had not been ‘meaningfully rebutted’ by the municipality and ‘it would not be unfair if an adverse inference is drawn against it insofar as its bona fides are considered’.
She said the court’s power to rescind a final order was limited and only permissible if there had been fraud or a material mistake.
She dismissed the application and ordered the municipality to pay the costs.
Article disclaimer: While we have made every effort to ensure the accuracy of this article, it is not intended to provide final legal advice as facts and situations will differ from case to case, and therefore specific legal advice should be sought with a lawyer.
