The Johannesburg High Court has issued a stern order against City Power, compelling the utility to rebuild homes it demolished in Alexandra, in a case that highlights the tension between public service delivery and constitutional human rights.
The court found that City Power acted unlawfully when it carried out demolitions in August without a court order. The ruling mandates City Power to not only restore the destroyed homes but also to replace all building materials to provide habitable shelter for the displaced residents.
The case was brought by the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) on behalf of nine affected households, comprising 27 people. The court also interdicted City Power from conducting any further evictions or demolitions in the area without a valid court order.
The dispute began after a prolonged power outage left a section of the community without electricity for over two weeks. City Power spokesperson claimed the outage could not be fixed because houses were illegally built on the electrical servitude, blocking access to high-voltage cables and other infrastructure.
According to the spokesperson, “the community itself, not City Power, demolished those houses to ensure that they allow City Power access to deal with the repairs and restore electricity.” He described the court’s order to rebuild the structures as “harsh” and “unfair,” expressing hope that a court-referred mediation process would shed light on the challenges faced by the utility.
However, the sequence of events told a different story. Residents received a warning from a ward councillor on Sunday, August 24th, that their houses would be demolished. The following day, while some residents were seeking intervention from the SAHRC, their homes were demolished in their absence.
One resident described the traumatic event: “They came with a gander and they were wearing blue overalls. I begged them… I’m unemployed and have no means of income. They destroyed my kitchen, bathroom, toilet, and most of my belongings.” The resident revealed the ordeal had such a severe impact on their health that they “ended up in a hospital.”
Another displaced resident pleaded, “All I want is my house. Right now, I’m homeless and share a one-bedroom with another family.”
A representative from the SAHRC clarified that of the nine households they represented, three were demolished while the others were not. The application to the court was therefore two-fold: to seek restoration for the demolished homes and to secure an interdict against further demolitions.
The SAHRC emphasized the legal precedent, stating, “The right to not have your home demolished comes straight from section 26 of the constitution… you can’t demolish without a court order.” The importance of judicial oversight, they explained, is to ensure a judge understands the circumstances of those being evicted.
In a significant development, the court has referred the matter to the South African Bureau of Standards (SABS) and the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for investigation. This is in connection with section 9 of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, which states that evicting or demolishing a home without a court order is a criminal offense.
The court’s ruling has brought mixed feelings to the community. One resident said the SAHRC’s intervention eased their anxiety, adding, “I feel relieved.” Another remains fearful, stating, “I’m not relaxed. I’m worried because I might be next.”
The affected residents, who mostly rely on solar power, now hope the restoration process will be swift so they can return to their homes.
