UCT fails to evict students living in parking lot
UCT has failed in its attempt to remove former student residents from a campus parking lot, reports The Citizen. This comes after the Western Cape High Court ruled that two occupants face a real risk of homelessness and are therefore entitled to legal protection against eviction.
What began as a student accommodation dispute at UCT’s Philip Kgosana residence in Mowbray ended with former residents erecting a tent in a university parking lot.
According to court records, the residence had been earmarked for decommissioning to address maintenance issues, and UCT had not explicitly guaranteed accommodation for the full 2024 academic year.
After eviction orders were granted in June 2025, the parties reached a settlement agreement in August 2025, extending the vacate deadline to 20 December 2025.
Multiple attempts by the respondents to stay the execution of the eviction order failed.
When the deadline passed without compliance, the sheriff executed the eviction on 22 December 2025, placing the respondents’ belongings in a nearby UCT parking lot.
The court heard that the respondents subsequently erected a tent there and took up occupation.
UCT then launched fresh proceedings in February 2026, seeking their removal from the parking lot as well.
Acting Judge Mushahida Adhikari dismissed UCT’s application entirely.
Central to the judgment was whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) applied to the respondents’ occupation of the parking lot.
UCT had argued that a SCA decision in Stay at South Point Properties v Mqulwana, established that purpose-built student accommodation does not constitute a ‘home’ under PIE, and that this principle extended to the parking lot.
The court rejected this interpretation, finding that whether PIE applies is always a fact-specific inquiry.
On the evidence before the court, two respondents – Mr Van Staden and Mr Kraai – filed affidavits stating they could not return to their parental homes.
The court found that UCT had not placed any evidence before it to contradict these claims. It concluded that both men faced a real risk of homelessness if evicted from the parking lot, according to The Citizen.
The remaining respondents were no longer living in the parking lot.
UCT’s bid for a sweeping interdict preventing all respondents from occupying any UCT property in future was also dismissed.
The court found there was insufficient evidence that any of the respondents were likely to unlawfully occupy UCT property again.
UCT must now bring fresh proceedings under PIE if it wishes to pursue the eviction of Van Staden and Kraai, where a court would be required to determine whether it is just and equitable to grant such an order.
There was no order as to 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.
