In a landmark decision, the Johannesburg High Court has ruled that the City of Johannesburg must pay R12-million to a property company, Changing Tides, after its failure to comply with a court order to provide temporary accommodation for 249 unlawful occupiers of a hijacked building in the inner city. The ruling, delivered by Acting Judge Dephny Mahosi on 14 March 2025, is expected to have significant implications for future eviction cases across South Africa.
Background
The case dates back to 2012, when Changing Tides, a property development company, sought to evict 249 men, women, and children from the 11-storey Chung Hua Mansions, a hijacked building in Johannesburg’s central business district. The court granted the eviction but ordered the City of Johannesburg to secure temporary accommodation for the residents by 30 January 2013, as required by South Africa’s eviction laws.
Under these laws, municipalities are required to provide temporary housing to individuals who may become homeless as a result of eviction. However, the City of Johannesburg failed to meet the court’s deadline, leading to years of legal disputes and inaction. It was only in January 2016—three years after the original deadline—that the residents were finally provided with temporary accommodation, following a contempt of court application.
The Lawsuit
In 2020, Changing Tides took legal action against the City, claiming financial damages for the delays. The property company argued that the municipality’s failure to comply with court orders had deprived it of its constitutional right to property by preventing it from renovating and renting out the building, which was intended for student accommodation.
Changing Tides also contended that the City’s actions infringed upon the occupiers’ right to adequate housing, as the conditions in the building were deteriorating and unsafe.
Court’s Findings
The court was tasked with determining whether the City’s delayed response to the eviction order had caused financial loss to Changing Tides, in the form of “pure economic loss.” To prove this, Changing Tides needed to demonstrate that the municipality’s conduct had been negligent, wrongful, and directly responsible for the financial damage.
Acting Judge Mahosi found that the City had indeed failed to comply with the court’s order, providing accommodation only in 2016—three years after the deadline. The court agreed with Changing Tides’ argument that the delays had deprived the company of its property rights, preventing it from renovating and renting out the building.
The judge also found that the City’s failure to comply with the court order violated the residents’ right to adequate housing. The residents had no choice but to remain in the building despite its unsafe conditions. Moreover, the court criticized the municipality’s conduct, stating that its actions undermined the rule of law and demonstrated a disregard for its constitutional obligation to comply with court orders.
Negligence and Financial Loss
In determining whether the City had been negligent, Judge Mahosi concluded that the municipality had not just been negligent but reckless. The City’s failure to act was only rectified when the mayor, municipal manager, and director of housing faced contempt of court proceedings. The court found that the municipality should have foreseen the financial consequences of its actions, including Changing Tides’ inability to renovate and rent out the building.
The ruling underscores the financial impact of prolonged delays in complying with eviction orders, particularly in a city grappling with widespread housing shortages and the legacy of urban decay.
Broader Implications
This ruling has significant implications for municipalities across South Africa, especially as the country continues to face mounting pressure to address housing inequalities and spatial justice. With the Constitutional Court set to hear crucial cases related to housing in the near future, this decision signals the growing importance of timely, responsible actions by local governments in eviction cases.
The case also highlights the challenges of balancing property rights with the rights of individuals to secure housing, especially in a country where millions still live in inadequate or unsafe conditions.
As the City of Johannesburg now faces the financial repercussions of its inaction, the decision serves as a reminder of the legal and moral obligations municipalities have toward vulnerable residents and property owners alike.