PRESS STATEMENT: LHR and LRC take on Rustenburg municipality's failures on upgrades to Tlabane hostels in the ConCourt

The Constitutional Court has argued that it is the duty of local authorities to be sensitive and communicative with the communities over which they preside while hearing arguments on the Rustenburg municipality’s failure to properly accommodate residents of the Tlabane women’s hostel during supposed upgrades to their properties.

The case deals with 22 Rustenburg women and their families who were allocated houses in the 1970s that were labeled hostels because black women were not allowed to own property during apartheid.

The Legal Resources Centre brought the application on the women’s behalf.

Lawyers for Human Rights (LHR) made submissions as amicus curae dealing with the history of housing rights in the “old black townships” and more specifically Bophuthatswana.

The Rustenburg municipality decided to upgrade these hostels at an estimated cost of R6 million without acknowledging or dealing with the women’s peculiar history.

The women were told that they would have to leave their houses for the upgrade to take place – to an area 30km from where they stay.

The women have argued they are the rightful owners of the houses, explaining their homes were not transferred into their names only because they were single women.

They contend the Constitution entitles them to peaceful possession and occupation of their property, that the municipality unlawfully interfered with this right by authorising the construction work and that the municipality has not acted reasonably.

The Rustenburg municipality has denied the applicants’ ownership and said it acted reasonably in the performance of its duty to ensure the construction of homes for which there is a need.

LHR’s Rudolph Jansen pointed out the case demonstrated how various conflicts arose when dealing with different constitutional rights and when one clause infringed on another. “It happens around the country and will happen a lot in the future when an authority is busy with development on land where other people have houses … this brings up certain complications … it is not simply something that can be done through a process of hearings or public meetings,” said Jansen.

Justice Zak Yacoob challenged the municipality’s failure to keep the community informed. “I want to know why it is ok for the municipality to go into somebody’s house and start bulldozing … how is that lawful conduct?”

The municipality maintains it followed the correct procedures in keeping the women informed but backtracked after baiting by justices Dikgang Moseneke and Yacoob.

Moseneke told the court, “we have to be sensitive to vulnerable people … this case is about the caring attitude of municipalities to communities over whom they have jurisdiction.”

The government needs to acknowledge the fact that old legislation dealing with occupational rights are complicated and must be investigated properly when a decision is made either about upgrading the rights into ownership or dealing with an upgrade in terms of the Housing Code.

The local government must be required to investigate the current status of the occupiers, a process that is not required in current legislation.

It is obvious the women have strong rights to the houses. They were granted occupation rights and were given a “Certificate to Occupy”. In terms of the Upgrading Act they ought to get ownership of the property. Even if the court does not agree with us, then the municipality was supposed to meet the Housing Code requirements, which they by far did not.

The Constitutional Court will rule on the case early next year.

For more information and interviews call Louise du Plessis on 0823460744