‘She now sleeps outside’: Judge criticises City of Ekurhuleni for apartheid-like evictions
· Citizen
The City of Ekurhuleni’s removal of residents from the Chief Albert Luthuli informal settlement, also known as the N12 settlement, drew strong criticism, with the courts agreeing that the demolitions were reminiscent of apartheid-era practices.
Residents, together with the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC), had approached the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg in a renewed legal battle with the metropolitan municipality.
Visit betsport24.es for more information.
This follows the destruction of their homes last month.
What began as a coordinated crackdown on illegal mining activities escalated into large-scale demolitions of informal dwellings from land located in Highway Park, near Cloverdene, Benoni.
The operation displaced around 570 people and their families.
Further demolitions by City of Ekurhuleni halted
On Friday, 12 June 2026, the high court granted an urgent interdict in favour of the applicants.
The order prevents the City of Ekurhuleni, executive mayor, city manager, the minister of police, and the minister of defence from demolishing any further structures at the N12 settlement while the legality of the evictions is being reviewed.
The court ruled that residents must not be prevented from reoccupying the land.
Notably, the municipality was further ordered to provide temporary accommodation for those displaced, with construction required to begin by Wednesday, 17 June and be completed by 30 June.
The mayor and city manager must also file a progress report with the court by 15 July.
Gauteng High Court judgment
In a detailed judgment delivered on Sunday, 14 June, Judge Stuart Wilson noted that the dispute has its origins in a Constitutional Court (ConCourt) case involving the City of Ekurhuleni.
That earlier case concerned residents of the Bapsfontein informal settlement, who were unlawfully evicted in March 2011.
The ConCourt ruled several months later that the evictions were unlawful because they were carried out without a court order, and instructed the municipality to provide alternative land near Bapsfontein.
Following that ruling, about 800 people were relocated to what became the N12 settlement.
However, Wilson highlighted that the permanent housing “never materialised”, and the settlement expanded significantly over time to nearly 2 000 dwellings as more displaced residents arrived.
“Notwithstanding the municipality’s failure, over a period of 15 years, to provide permanent accommodation to the occupiers, the least the occupiers could have expected was that they would be allowed to live at the N12 settlement with a degree of tenure security, safe from the kind of violent action that triggered their relocation.
“But it was not to be,” the judgment reads.
N12 settlement demolitions questioned
Between 6 May and 15 May, security personnel, police officers and military members, allegedly acting on municipal instructions, carried out evictions and demolished at least 400 structures.
The court raised serious concerns about the legality and justification for the operation.
“Nobody suggests that a court order authorised this action,” Wilson said.
The authorities claimed the operation was aimed at addressing illegal mining activities in the area, but the court questioned the reasoning.
“The respondents do nothing on the papers to explain how that objective justified the wholesale demolition of the settlement and the eviction of its inhabitants.”
The SAHRC became involved after Ekurhuleni’s city manager denied that unlawful evictions had occurred.
The court considered accounts from affected residents, including Jane Mmabatho, who had lived in the N12 settlement for 15 years after her relocation from Bapsfontein.
Mmabatho lost her home and belongings during the demolitions, including key documents confirming her relocation.
The woman and 11 family members, including six grandchildren, were left without shelter.
The court also heard the case of 71-year-old Ceroline Mphuthi, who is also a former Bapsfontein resident.
“Her home was destroyed in front of her. She now sleeps ‘outside’, by which I understand her to mean that she lives on the open veld,” Wilson said.
Possible contempt of court
The City of Ekurhuleni argued that rebuilding could not proceed because the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had declared the area unfit for occupation.
However, Wilson dismissed the argument, saying that no viable alternative housing solution had been provided for those left homeless.
According to the judge, the evictions violated the occupiers’ constitutional rights.
He suggested that the municipality may be in contempt of the ConCourt’s earlier order.
“The municipality appears to have learned nothing from what the Constitutional Court had to say in that case.
“The municipality has repeated the same egregious insults to the occupiers’ dignity that it inflicted a decade-and-a-half ago.”
It had been argued that the conduct of the authorities mirrored apartheid-era forced removals.
“On the facts as they presently stand, I cannot disagree,” Wilson remarked.