Africa-Press – South-Africa. The Mpumalanga High Court has affirmed findings by the SA Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) that the conduct of the Mpumalanga Economic Growth Agency (MEGA) contributed to the illegal removal of a man from his home.
The matter dates to February 2003, when Francis Tembo assumed the occupation of a unit on land that is now owned by MEGA.
The property was owned by his former employer when he first moved in.
Tembo paid R300 rent per month until 2015, when MEGA increased the rent to R917.
Three years before that, in 2012, the agency had “decided to re-evaluate its immovable properties and to collect market-related rent in respect of its housing properties”, according to court papers seen by News24.
Like some of his neighbours, Tembo refused to sign a new lease agreement with MEGA “based on legal advice he received”.
He also ceased to pay rent.
Around the same time, several people in the area identified homes they wanted even though people were already occupying the properties.
A woman, identified as Ms Msiza in court documents, laid to claim to the unit that Tembo was occupying.
A ruling written by acting Judge Johannes Roelofse states: “It appears that the agency created an impression that the agency would lease Mr Tembo’s property to Ms Msiza.”
“On or about 4 May 2018, Ms Msiza, accompanied by a mob of people, forcefully evicted Mr Tembo from the property.”
The judge noted that Tembo then moved into a smaller yet more expensive property while Ms Msiza moved into his home.
“She pays no rent,” the judgment states.
‘Tembo’s rights were violated’
The SAHRC, which investigated the incident, found that “by offering the property that was already occupied by Mr Tembo to Ms Msiza, MEGA contributed to the events that culminated in the eviction of Mr Tembo through illegal means by Ms Msiza, with the assistance of the mob”.
The commission also found that MEGA failed in its duty in terms of section 7(2) of the Constitution to promote and protect Mr Tembo’s right to housing, including his right not to be evicted without a court order.
The commission ordered MEGA to find Tembo alternative accommodation of the same standard and value as the property from which he was illegally evicted or otherwise take legal action against Ms Msiza for illegally occupying Tembo’s property.
It also ordered MEGA to subsidise Tembo’s rent pending compliance with its directives.
MEGA opposed the SAHRC’s directives and challenged the commission in the Mpumalanga High Court.
The agency claimed that the commission “committed an error of fact and/or law when it found that engaging in discussions with Ms Msiza with the aim of concluding a lease agreement contributed to the subsequent eviction of Mr Tembo by the mob”.
MEGA also challenged the directive to assist Tembo with his accommodation and highlighted that he previously refused to sign a lease agreement with the agency.
However, Roelofse ruled that:
However, he explained that the finding that the agency did not orchestrate Tembo’s eviction, but that its actions contributed to Tembo’s unlawful eviction, does not constitute a definitive finding that it violated Tembo’s rights.
“That is ultimately for a competent court to decide if called upon to do so,” he said.
Roelofse dismissed MEGA’s application and ordered it to pay the costs of the SAHRC’s participation in the matter.
For More News And Analysis About South-Africa Follow Africa-Press
