IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT,  JOHANNESBURG
(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)
Case number: 48102/2012

	 

DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE

(1)	REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2)	OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)	REVISED: 

____________________        ____________________
DATE				        SIGNATURE

               		      

In the matter between:
PHILANE HLOPHE 							           First Applicant 
THE RESIDENTS OF CHUNG HUA MANSIONS 		         Second to One Hundred
191 JEPPE STREET, JOHANNESBURG			           and Eighty-Second Applicants

And

CITY OF JOHANNESBURG 						
METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY                                                               First Respondent
EXECUTIVE MAYOR, 
CITY OF JOHANNEBURG, PARKS TAU                                                  Second Respondent
CITY MANAGER,
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG, TREVOR FOWLER                                      Third Respondent
DIRECTOR OF HOUSING,
CITY OF JOHANNESBURG,  THABO MAYISELA                                  Fourth Respondent
CHANGING TIDES PROPERTIES 74 (PTY) LTD                                        Fifth Respondent

Summary – (1)  Chronology of court orders and failure to comply therewith – Eviction of unlawful occupiers  granted June 2012 with City to furnish  report on arrangements made for provision of shelter to be furnished by 31 October and  City to provide  temporary shelter by 30th January 2013 and  occupiers to vacate  on 15th February 2013.   Report furnished on 20th November 2012 stated “it would be impossible to accommodate” the occupiers as set out in the order.   On 6th February 2013 eviction order suspended and City required to report on arrangements made for accommodation by 20th March 2013.   On 20th March City furnished report that “it is impossible, in the foreseeable future for the City to accommodate the occupiers”.
  (2) Reports fail to indicate  utilisation of expertise involving planning, finance, town and urban  and housing development;   reports  failed to provide any of the information ordered;  reports are no more than pleas of misery and give no indication of solutions to problems;  reports give no indication of any task team formed, meetings held, research conducted, finances secured, rates defaults identified,  buildings inspected, owners consulted, rentals or purchase prices calculated, architects or builders retained;   over eight months there has been little activity.
(3)The City of Johannesburg has known of its general obligations to provide temporary shelter to occupiers since February 2010 when the  decision in Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd was handed down;   has  known of its specific obligations to these particular identified occupiers since December 2011 when the  decision in Blue Moonlight Properties  was handed down by the Constiutional Court.   Nothing has been sprung upon the City which has undergone a gradual process of enlightenment.  There has been opportunity to absorb the import of the court decisions; to understand the role which the City is required to play in sheltering these occupiers, to prepare the appropriate response which the Constitution and the courts have placed upon the City.
(4)The attitude of the City indicates reluctance to comply with the directions of the Constitutional Court.  Individuals and entities may lament that the City of Johannesburg will be expected to house the entire continent of Africa;  may disagree that no distinction is drawn between South  Africans and non South Africans when it comes to providing temporary housing for the homeless; may complain that the rates and other income of this City cannot support provision of housing of those who do not directly contribute to the tax base of the City; may protest that provision of temporary housing to unlawful occupiers will encourage persons to bypass  housing waiting lists and prejudice persons who have been patiently waiting on housing lists.  There is no room for any tier of government or any organ of state or any court in the land to be inimical to the reasoning or the decision of the Constitutional Court.  The City of Johannesburg is bound thereby.  This court is bound thereby.  We must all do our best and exert ourselves to implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court in pursuit of the  Constitutional promises.  The City of Johannesburg cannot continue to sit back and throw up its hands in horror each time a group of persons is about to be evicted and become homeless and the City is therefore required to provide temporary accommodation.
(5)  The City needs to be directed as to the information required in order to focus the minds of both politicians and functionaries on the work needed to be done by the City to meet its Constitutional obligations:

a.	Subsequent to the Blue Moonlight order  of the Constitutional Court on 1st December 2011,
i.	Has the City of Johannesburg established a specialist task team or unit  to plan for  implementation  housing arrangements for all those whom it is estimated  will be evicted as unlawful occupiers, rendered homeless and whom the City has an obligation to accommodate?
ii.	The City is required to specify:
1.	 Which specialist skills such as urban development,  town planning,  housing,  finance,  building  and other areas of expertise are represented  in this unit?
2.	Which departments within the City administration are represented within this unit and with which departments does the unit liaise?
3.	What budget has been established for such unit?
iii.	If no such unit has been established:
1.	The City is required to explain in detail why this has not been done.    
2.	What structure or structures currently implement the housing arrangements  required to be implemented in the Blue Moonlight case with reference to the  personnel involved,  skills available,  liaison undertaken,  time availed from other duties,  management and direction of  implementation.
iv.	Has the City planned an estimate of the number of  persons  and the gender and age distribution of persons who will be required to  be accommodated over the period  1st December 2011 to 30 November 2011, 1st December 2012 to  30th November 2012, 1st December 2012 to 30th December 2013 and for each successive twelve month period until  the end of  2016?   If the City uses another twelve month period for such estimates,  then it should so indicate.
v.	Has the City, in accordance with the estimates referred to above :
1.	Planned for   the number of   beds,  rooms, buildings  and other facilities required over this period?
2.	Ascertained  the current and prospective availability  of land and/or buildings?
3.	Budgeted for rentals or purchase of land and buildings  and refurbishment and maintenance thereof to achieve provision  of temporary accommodation over this period?
4.	Arranged financing estimated to be needed over this period.  The City is required to identify sources of funding:
a.	Dates of applications and sums required from the National Treasury.
b.	Dates of applications and sums required from the Gauteng Province.
c.	Dates of applications and sums required from the City of Johannesburg.
vi.	Which experts prepared these estimates and plans on behalf of the City of Johannesburg and   are these plans and estimates continuously updated?
vii.	If no such estimates and plans have been prepared,  the City is required to explain why this has not been done and on what basis the City is currently  attempting to meet its current and future obligations in terms of the Blue Moonlight case.
viii.	Has the City identified buildings  for rental  in order to provide accommodation as required?  How many such buildings have been identified?   How many beds would be available on a rental basis per building and in total?     At what cost are the rentals per building and per bed?  How many rental agreements have been negotiated and concluded? How many negotiations are currently underway?
ix.	Has the City identified buildings for purchase in order to provide accommodation as required?  How many such buildings have been identified?  How many beds would be available on a per building and in total?  At what cost are the purchase and refurbishment of each building  and per bed?  How many purchase agreements have been negotiated and concluded?  How many negotiations are currently underway?
x.	On what date did the City make a written offer to  Fifth Respondent in this matter, Changing Tides Properties 74 (Pty) Ltd,  to rent the building situate at 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg and at what rental  and for what period in order to provide accommodation to the occupiers in this matter. On what date did the City make a written offer to Fifth Respondent to purchase the aforesaid building and at what purchase price and on what terms?     Over what period did negotiations take place?  On what date did the City receive a written response from Fifth Respondent and to what effect?
xi.	Has the  City identified architects,  builders, plumbers, electricians and other persons with expertise who can procure renovations and refurbishments and maintenance of  any building rented or purchased  to provide accommodation?   Has the City taken steps to ensure  speedy tender processes  or contractual arrangements to ensure temporary accommodation is available on an emergency basis? 

______________________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT

SATCHWELL J:
INTRODUCTION
1.	A number of  men, women and children unlawfully occupy a building at 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg.  The owner launched an application in the South Gauteng High Court on 26th May 2011   for  their eviction.   Such eviction order was granted on 14th  June 2012. The date for eviction allowed  sufficient time to the City of Johannesburg  both   to furnish   an accounting of its arrangements for housing these  occupiers and   to provide them  temporary shelter secure against eviction.   On  6th February 2013,  the order of June 2012 was suspended  because the City required,  and was granted, further time  to  provide temporary shelter secure against eviction, and to furnish  yet another accounting of the  arrangements  made by the City  for the provision of such shelter.

2.	To date, the City has failed to comply with either part of the orders of June 2012 or February 2013.   

3.	Accordingly, an application has now been brought by the Applicant to order the individuals who occupy the positions of   Executive Mayor,   City Manager and Director of Housing to take personal responsibility for ensuring compliance with these orders. 

4.	The response of the City is to ask  that the eviction order continues to be suspended for an unknown period while the City takes steps to provide emergency housing as previously ordered and provide a further report on the provision of accommodation.    Everyone must “wait a little longer”.    The owner of the building maintains that it cannot continue to wait indefinitely to regain possession of its property.

CHRONOLOGY PRIOR TO ORDER OF 12 JUNE   2012   
5.	The fact that the City would eventually be required to provide accommodation for these particular individuals, has not come as a surprise to it. The City has had potential   indication of its general responsibilities for a period of some 38 months and final indication of its specific responsibilities for a period of some 16 months. 

6.	The original decision in the South Gauteng Local Division in Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd, was handed down on 4th February 2010.  The City has therefore  known  for about 38 months that the High Court had found that it had an obligation to provide temporary shelter  to unlawful occupiers about to be evicted.    The Supreme Court of Appeal, by order handed down on 30th March 2011,   required the City to provide the occupiers in Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd with temporary emergency accommodation.   The obligation of the City to provide accommodation to potential evictees, has been known to be  very probable  for a period of some 25 months.  

7.	On 26th May 2011, the owner of 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg,  launched proceedings for the eviction of the occupiers of  this  building.      The City has therefore known of the possibility of the pending homelessness of these occupiers for a period of some 36 months.    During this period, it  has also been alive to the very real possibility  that the City was constitutionally required to provide them with temporary accommodation.

8.	 The judgment of the Constitutional Court in  City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and another  2012(2) SA 104 CC, was handed down on  1st December 2011. That judgment confirmed  the obligation of the City  to provide  temporary accommodation to unlawful occupiers  about to be evicted  in   the circumstances of that case.  Since that date, the City has been in no doubt  that it would need to make arrangements for the occupiers of 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg.

9.	On 12th June 2012,   the City of Johannesburg  consented to the orders made by Claasssen J.  The City was therefore in agreement that it was obliged to provide “temporary shelter” to the occupiers.   It acceded to the time period  (six and  a half months)  within which it would provide such shelter to these named individuals.  

10.	As this chronology demonstrates,   this obligation to shelter the occupiers has   not been suddenly sprung upon the City of Johannesburg.    Nothing has leapt out of the blue.   There has been a gradual process of enlightenment.  There has been  opportunity to absorb both  the general and specific import of the court decisions.   There  has been  opportunity to  understand and appreciate the role which the City is required to play in sheltering  these occupiers.   There has been opportunity to prepare the appropriate  response to  the obligations which the Constitution and  our courts  have  placed upon the City.
CITY REPONSE TO THE COURT ORDERS OF JUNE 2012 AND FEBRUARY 2013

11.	  On  12th  June 2012 Claassen J  was asked,  by consent, to make  orders  which incorporated the following  timeline:
a.	By  31 October 2012, the City was directed to file a report  “setting out the nature and location of the temporary shelter to be provided to the occupiers”;
b.	By no later than 30th January 2013,  the City was directed  “to provide the list of residents with temporary shelter where they may live secure against eviction, in a location as near as possible to the area where the property is situated”.
c.	By  not later than 15th February 2013,  the occupiers  were “ to vacate  Chung Hua Mansions,  191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg..”

12.	On 20th November 2012,  the Deputy Director, Legal and Compliance for the City of Johannesburg finalized  a report.    The report:
a.	Commented that the “recent”   ‘Blue Moonlight’ decision  has meant that  the City has been ordered to provide “temporary emergency accommodation assistance  to many more persons in need of such assistance..”  and that the “numbers of evictees who require temporary emergency accommodation assistance will swell in the very near future”.   There was also reference to  other litigation or pending orders where the City  had been or was about to be ordered to provide temporary emergency accommodation.
b.	Described  temporary  shelter  as the provision  of  “beds in dormitory-type accommodation with shared cooking and ablution facilities.  Dormitory means typical hostel configurations consisting of small bed cubicles or communal sleeping halls sharing limited ablution, cooking and dining facilities.” for a specified period of 6 months. 
c.	Identified seven buildings acquired by the City or its municipally owned entities  for purposes of providing temporary or rental accommodation.   These buildings were stated to be not available for temporary emergency accommodation assistance or fully occupied or otherwise not available. 
d.	Detailed   the building known as  Linatex  (Stand 902, New Doornfontein) as currently “in the process of being renovated”   which renovations will be completed by April 2013 and  would  be able to provide  temporary accommodation for 144 persons.  Further detailed  the building known as Ekuthuleni, corner De Villiers and Nugget Street,  which would  have approximately 100   temporary accommodation “opportunities” available from February 2013.
e.	Complains that “without financial resources and assistance from other spheres of government, the City is not able to upscale or accelerate the provision of temporary emergency accommodation assistance  and is not able to provide temporary emergency accommodation assistance in the short term.”  

13.	Accordingly,    the conclusion reported on 20th November 2012 ( five months after the court order) by the city   was that “it would be impossible for the City to accommodate the Respondents as outlined in the order”  by reason of  “the lack of available buildings  and financial and other resources”   and the “ever-growing list of evictees who await allocation of temporary emergency accommodation assistance”.   

14.	   The report advised the court that, if this lack of temporary accommodation  would render an eviction  unjust and unfair,  “then the court must not order the respondents eviction” .  If the court had already ordered  that the occupiers vacate the premises then  the court is advised that “an appropriate date for the respondents eviction and allocation of temporary emergency accommodation assistance must be determined”.   [sic]

15.	On 6th February 2013,   Lamont J  suspended the eviction order made by Claassen J (which was to be implemented on or before 15th February 2013)  and  again made  an order incorporating  certain milestone:  

a.	By no later than 20th March 2013, the City was directed to file a report  “setting out the nature and location of the temporary shelter to be provided to the occupiers”.  That report was required to “identify the building or buildings where the occupiers will be accommodated and the particular terms as to rent and occupation on which the occupiers will be accommodated, including any house rules or other tenant responsibilities sought to be imposed.  The report must specifically  deal with the buildings known as Ekuthuleni and Linatex.  The report must also contain an undertaking  to make the accommodation available by a specified date, giving fully detailed and rational reasons why such date cannot be any earlier.  The report must deal specifically with the issue of proximity and explain why the particular location and form of accommodation have been selected……”

16.	On 20th March 2013,   the Deputy Director: Group Legal and Contracts employed by the City finalized a report.  The report:
a.	Stated that both the Ekuthuleni and Linatex buildings had  been allocated by the City to the occupiers of the Tikwelo House building  whose eviction and housing was the subject matter of the judgment  of  the Supreme Court of Appeal in City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd & Others handed down on 14th September 2012. 
b.	Amplified upon  the numbers of occupiers facing homelessness due to eviction proceedings;
c.	Gave further description of the  temporary accommodation provided by the City, explaining  the policy  underlying the  management of such accommodation and the rules pertaining to the  use of such accommodation;
d.	Refers again to Europa House which  forms part of  Joshco’s low cost rental accommodation portfolio and “does not constitute temporary emergency accommodation assistance.”
e.	Outlined the SPRE Policy (Special Process for the Relocation of Evictees)  with particular reference to ‘transitional shelters’;
f.	Indicated that   “officials from the City’s Housing and other departments in early February 2013 conducted a series of site visits in all regions of the city, in order to identify buildings and sites.  The buildings will have to be renovated in such a way as to provide for the type of accommodation referred to in paragraph 8 of the City’s previous report.  The sites which comprise vacant land will have to be developed for purpose of constructing buildings ….. the City was successful in identifying a number of sites that may very well serve this purpose.”   “The next step, which has commenced, involves the preliminary costing and budgeting for refurbishment and development of such building and sites.  Once this process is finalized the costing and budgeting report will be placed before the City’s budget committee for approval.  It is not known at this stage how long this process will take.  An announcement on budget allocation will be made by the Mayor and is expected in May 2013.”  This process will take a while to complete, it being “envisaged that the City will require a minimum period of 9 (nine) months to complete the supply chain management and procurement processes.”  

17.	Accordingly,   the conclusion reported on  20th March 2013 ( nine months after the court order)  by the city was that  “it is not possible for the City to identify a specific building or buildings where the occupiers will be  accommodated.”  and “ It is impossible, in the foreseeable future, for the City to accommodate the occupiers in terms of paragraph 4 of the order granted by the Honourable Mr Justice Claassen”    by reason of   “lack of availability of further buildings”,  “the current lack of financial resources for the City to acquire buildings for temporary emergency accommodation assistance” ,  the “ever growing list of evictees who require temporary emergency accommodation assistance in terms of court orders which have been handed down subsequent to the City’s previous  report” and “the time period for the completion of supply chain management and procurement processes, which  is a minimum of 9 (nine) months [and which] does not take into account the period for renovations of buildings after same are acquired by the City”.

18.	The report requested that  the court further suspend the date of eviction of the occupiers from 191 Jeppe Street for a period of at least nine months.
THE CITY OF JOHANNESBURG AND THESE COURT ORDERS

19.	In short,  the  response of the City of Johannesburg to the orders of Claassen J  (to which the City  had  consented)  and to the orders of Lamont J was to   claim that it  could not comply with the orders of June 2012 and February 2013 either to   detail the accommodation to be provided to these occupiers  or  to provide  these occupiers with temporary accommodation.  

20.	On reading these reports  and appreciating  the import thereof,  I had a number of concerns - most of which I have already indicated to counsel at the Wednesday  hearing of this application.   They bear repeating because  I am not confident that those individuals  who head up the City of Johannesburg  (and who are the respondents in this application) are necessarily aware of what is or  rather what is not happening in this application.   I extended an invitation through   counsel for the  Executive Mayor,  the  City Manager and the  Director of Housing to  attend at court  on Friday  to hear these concerns personally.   I appreciate that  this was very short notice  on which to extend an invitation to  the Executive Mayor and the City Manager,   that it was not possible for either of them to attend  and thank them for the most courteous  letter which I received in response to this invitation.   I thank the newly appointed Director of Housing,  Mr Thabo Mayisela and his Director of Contracts, Mr Mbulelo Ruda,    for taking the time out of their  busy schedules   to attend at court on  the Friday hearing. 

21.	Amongst the concerns arising from these two reports are as follows:

a.	First, I was a little surprised that  both reports  appear to have been compiled by a lawyer – ‘Deputy Director: Legal and Compliance’ and ‘Deputy Director: Legal and Contracts’.   The City may have been brought to court and the City may be responding to court orders but the  subject matter of these reports is not  a legal issue.  It is a planning, budgetary, town planning, urban development and housing issue.   Are there no experts in these fields available to the City   who can compile reports on  the realities on which the courts have required factual information?  Is there no dedicated task team working on  provision of temporary shelter?
  
b.	Second,  the City   was ordered to    detail certain specified  information viz  “the nature and location of the accommodation to be provided”.     This both reports failed to do.   General elucidation of accommodation provided to other persons is  of  no assistance to the court;  information about other buildings which  are not available  for use in housing these occupiers  does not take resolution of this matter any further;    mission and vision and policy development  are irrelevant to the particular  task ordered by the court;  budgetary and  asset constraints  were  not  sought  by the court.

c.	Third,  both reports are essentially pleas in misericordiam   outlining the difficulties  confronted by the City in complying with the orders.  The City was not  asked  to  share its various  problems with the court.   The court ordered details of the solution achieved by the City to the problem of the pending homelessness of the occupiers to be evicted.    The City was given a period of  months to achieve this solution.    The court required information on the positive result achieved by the City  over the period of  months allowed to it.  

d.	Fourth,   the  first report of November 2012  gave no indication at all of any task team formed,   meetings held,   research conducted,    finances secured,   deeds office records perused,  town plans scrutinised,  rates records  and defaults identified,   buildings inspected,  owners  consulted,  negotiations  attempted,  rentals or purchase prices   calculated,   architect, builders and other subcontractors  retained.   No activity is identified as having been taken by the City subsequent to the order of 12th June 2012 and  pertaining to that order.  On reading the report of November 2012, it would seem that nothing was done – the past and the present were simply described  and the future was  hoped for.  There is no semblance of action and no pretence thereto.

e.	Fifth,   the second report  of  20th   March 2013 does report on  physical  motion and  mental application by  City employees.    Eight months after the order of Claassen J,   officials from various of the City departments  “conducted a series of site visits to identify buildings and sites”.    The City was able to “identify a number of sites”.     And that is  the sum total of  all activity within the eight month period.     

f.	Sixth,  the first report appears uncertain whether or not the eviction had been ordered – it had.  Both reports  explicitly  request extensions of time  (for an indefinite period since no definite date for compliance can be furnished)  regardless of the position of the occupiers or the owner. 

22.	The reports with which the court has been furnished by the City and the lack of any positive outcome  pursuant to efforts taken by the City   seem to indicate an attitude  on the part of the City which is   only very reluctantly  (if at all ) compliant  with the directions of the Constitutional Court.      

23.	The City has definitely known since December 2011 of its general obligations  towards the homeless and  definitely of its specific obligations towards these individual occupiers since June 2012.  It states that the numbers of evictees and potentially homeless persons  in Johannesburg  is on the increase.    Yet where is the necessary planning and preparation by the City to meet its Constitutional obligations?   

24.	There are many individuals and entities whose views are not reflected in the decision of the Constitutional Court in  Blue Moonlight supra.   They  may  lament that the City of Johannesburg will be expected to house the entire continent of Africa. They  may  disagree that no distinction is drawn between South Africans and non South Africans when it comes to providing temporary housing for the homeless.  They may complain that the rates and other income in this City cannot support provision of housing of those who do not directly  contribute to the tax base of the City.  They may protest that  provision of temporary housing  as required will encourage  persons to bypass housing waiting lists and prejudice persons who have been patiently waiting on housing lists.   And  on and on the dissatisfactions may be expressed.

25.	But there is no room for any tier of government or any organ of the state or any  court in the land to be inimical to the reasoning or the decisions of the Constitutional Court.  The City of Johannesburg is bound thereby.   This court is bound thereby.   We must all do our best and exert ourselves to  implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court in pursuit of the Constitutional promises.

26.	The result of this homily is that the City of Johannesburg cannot sit back  and throw up its hands in horror each time a group of persons are to be evicted as unlawful occupiers,  about to become homeless and  the City is therefore required to provide temporary accommodation.     The City must act in a Constitutional and professional manner and this has not been done to date in this litigation.
FURTHER REPORT

27.	At the hearing of this application, I indicated to the parties that    I believed that a further report would be necessary.      I indicated that I thought  the City required direction from the court  as to  the information required.  Such direction might focus the minds of both politicians and functionaries   on the  work needed to be done by the City to meet its Constitutional obligations.    I cannot and  do not  claim to have any knowledge of town planning,  urban development,  provision of housing or budgeting therefore or management of large corporations.     But I do believe that  the questions to which I would like answers might  propel the City into  (if not a whirl) at least a  flow of directed and focussed action.

28.	I invited all parties to  take a week or so to consider the questions which I indicated I wanted asked and to formulate further or different issues which  they believe the City should address in order to move this litigation towards finalisation.

29.	Applicants  suggested that the further report should  deal with:

a.	Since Europa House is the only property identified in the City’s March report as being potentially  available for occupation,  the City is to:  
i.	 provide the  date on which accommodation can and will be made available to the applicants at Europa House;
ii.	give reasons why  such accommodation would not be possible;
b.	The location of any other vacant property at the disposal of the City and the date by which that property will be made available to the applicants.
c.	The measures already adopted or to be put in place by the City to ensure that occupiers of other buildings in the Johannesburg CBD who are facing  eviction and likely to be rendered homeless will be provided by the City with emergency accommodation .
d.	In addition a process of meaningful engagement by the City with the applicants  is proposed to address, inter alia,  the terms of accommodation, the process of relocation  and the measures to ensure that the applicants will be secure against eviction.

30.	Respondents have suggested that the proposed further report should follow the specifications set out in City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and others  2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA) at paragraph 40.  In my view, the directions or suggestions given in that judgment  were appropriate at  a stage which has long passed in the present case.   In fact,  the respondents  own comments  indicate that   this is so:
a.	There is no dispute over the fact  that the continued occupation of the building by the applicants gives rise to health or safety concerns;
b.	The identity of the applicants is not in dispute nor is it in dispute that the applicants socio-economic circumstances make them eligible for the provision  of  temporary emergency accommodation in the event that they are evicted;
c.	There is no dispute that some or all of the applicants face  homelessness if evicted and that they are therefore eligible for the provision of temporary emergency accommodation;
d.	The City intends to provide temporary emergency accommodation to the applicants.  It must in its report provide details of buildings or land which has been identified for the provision of temporary emergency accommodation,  the date on which accommodation will be made available to the occupiers  and the terms and conditions on which such accommodation will be made available;
e.	 The City  undertakes to hold discussions with the owner in this respect with the aim of identifying measures that may alleviate the burden on it.

31.	I require a report from the City of Johannesburg,  to be personally  signed by  each of the Executive Mayor,  the City Manager and the  Director of Housing.  

32.	 The report must respond to each of the  questions set  out in paragraph  2  of the Order below  whether or not the City is able to respond in the affirmative that it has found and is making available accommodation to these occupiers.  In other words,  the City cannot produce the address and details of accommodation and the date when this will be available and then state that it is not necessary to answer the specific questions which are required to be answered in terms of this order.  

33.	 These questions are  formulated  with one outcome  only in mind:   provision of  temporary accommodation for these applicants sooner rather than later.   They are premised upon  the view that  management towards an outcome  must be planned, focussed and  directed towards  that outcome.   These questions seek to address the many difficulties and problems upon which the City relies to explain its failure to have taken any concrete steps over the past  eleven months towards compliance with the court order.

34.	In addition, the City is required to specify in writing the nature and location of the temporary shelter to be provided to the applicants.

ORDER.
1.  It is declared that thee second, third and fourth respondents, in their respective capacities as the Executive Mayor, Municipal Manager and Director of Housing of the City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality (“the City”), are constitutionally and statutorily obliged to take all the necessary steps to ensure that the City complies with paragraph 2 of the court order granted by Claassen J in case no. 2011/20127 on 14th June 2012 (“the June 2012 court order”) and the court order granted by Lamont J on 6th February 2013 (“the February 2013 court order”), obliging the City to provide the applicants with temporary shelter where they may live secure against eviction, in a location as near as feasibly possible to 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg.
2.  The City is directed to provide full and complete answers to  the following questions , such answers to be signed by the second, third and fourth respondents personally, and  furnished to the  applicants and fifth respondent  as also this court  by 12h00 on Friday 18th May 2013: 
a.	Subsequent to the Blue Moonlight order  of the Constitutional Court on 1st December 2011,
i.	Has the City of Johannesburg established a specialist task team or unit  to plan for  implementation  housing arrangements for all those whom it is estimated  will be evicted as unlawful occupiers, rendered homeless and whom the City has an obligation to accommodate?
ii.	The City is required to specify:
1.	 Which specialist skills such as urban development, town planning,  housing,  finance,  building  and other areas of expertise are represented  in this unit?
2.	Which departments within the City administration are represented within this unit and with which departments does the unit liaise?
3.	What budget has been established for such unit?
iii.	If no such unit has been established:
1.	The City is required to explain in detail why  this has not been done.    
2.	What  structure or structures currently implement the housing arrangements  required to be implemented in the Blue Moonlight case with reference to the  personnel involved,  skills available,  liaison undertaken,  time availed from other duties,  management and direction of  implementation.
iv.	Has the City  planned an estimate of the number of  persons  and the gender and age distribution of persons who will be required to  be accommodated over the period  1st December 2011 to 30 November 2011, 1st December 2012 to  30th November 2012, 1st December 2012 to 30th December 2013 and for each successive twelve month period until  the end of  2016?   If the City uses another twelve month period for such estimates,  then it should so indicate.
v.	Has the City, in accordance with the estimates referred to above :
1.	Planned for   the number of   beds,  rooms, buildings  and other facilities required over this period?
2.	Ascertained  the current and prospective availability  of land and/or buildings?
3.	Budgeted for rentals or purchase of land and buildings  and refurbishment and maintenance thereof to achieve provision  of temporary accommodation over this period?
4.	Arranged financing estimated to be needed over this period.  The City is required to identify sources of funding:
a.	Dates of applications and sums required from the National Treasury.
b.	Dates of applications and sums required from the Gauteng Province.
c.	Dates of applications and sums required from the City of Johannesburg.
vi.	Which experts prepared these estimates and plans on behalf of the City of Johannesburg and   are these plans and estimates continuously updated?
vii.	If no such estimates and plans have been prepared,  the City is required to explain why this has not been done and on what basis the City is currently  attempting to meet its current and future obligations in terms of the Blue Moonlight case.
viii.	Has the City identified buildings  for rental by the City  in order to provide accommodation as required?  How many such buildings have been identified?   How many beds would be available per building and in total?     At what cost are the rentals per building and per bed?  How many rental agreements have been negotiated and concluded? How many negotiations are currently underway?
ix.	Has the City identified buildings for purchase in order to provide accommodation as required?  How many such buildings have been identified?  How many beds would be available on a per building and in total?  At what cost are the purchase and refurbishment of each building  and per bed?  How many purchase agreements have been negotiated and concluded?  How many negotiations are currently underway?
x.	On what date did the City make a written offer to  Fifth Respondent in this matter, Changing Tides Properties 74 (Pty) Ltd,  to rent the building situate at 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg and at what rental  and for what period in order to provide accommodation to the occupiers in this matter. On what date did the City make a written offer to Fifth Respondent to purchase the aforesaid building and at what purchase price and on what terms?     Over what period did negotiations take place?  On what date did the City receive a written response from Fifth Respondent and to what effect?
xi.	Has the  City identified architects,  builders, plumbers, electricians and other persons with expertise who can procure renovations and refurbishments and maintenance of  any building rented or purchased  to provide accommodation?   Has the City taken steps to ensure  speedy tender processes  or contractual arrangements to ensure temporary accommodation is available on an emergency basis? 
3. The second, third and fourth respondents are ordered to take all the administrative and other steps necessary to ensure that the City –
i) complies, within two months of the date of this order, with its obligations an terms of paragraph 2 of the June 2012 and February 2013 court orders, to provide the applicants with temporary shelter where they may live secure against eviction, in a location as near as feasibly possible to 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg. 
ii) complies, within one month of the date of this order with its obligations in terms of the June 2012 and February 2013 court orders to deliver a report specifying the nature and location of the temporary shelter to be provided to the applicants. That report must be delivered, under oath, and signed by the second, third and fourth respondents.                          
4. Paragraph 4 of the 14 June 2012 court order, evicting the applicants from their homes at Chung Hua Mansions, 191 Jeppe Street, Johannesburg, is suspended pending compliance with the orders made in paragraph 2 above.
5. If the second to fourth respondents fail to comply with any of the orders in paragraph 2 above, the applicants and the fifth respondent are given leave to supplement their papers and to enrol this application on 5 days’ notice to the first to fourth respondents for a further hearing on, and determination of, such complaints of contempt of court, or claims for constitutional damages, as the applicants and the fifth respondent may then advance;
6. The first respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and client;
7. This matter has already been postponed for further hearing before Satchwell J  in the opposed motion court on Wednesday  12th  2013 and will remain with Satchwell J for determination of further steps and processes, including further argument as necessary, to be undertaken in the case.

___________________
K. SATCHWELL

Counsel for the Applicants: i) Adv P. Kennedy SC 
         ii) Adv. S. Wilson 
Attorneys for the Applicants: SERI Law Clinic
Counsel for First to Fourth Respondents: Adv. I. Currie
Attorneys for First to Fifth Respondents: KRB Law Firm 
Counsel for the Fifth Respondent: i) Adv. R. Willis
				        ii) Adv. S. Rawat	
Attorneys for Fifth Respondent: Esthe Muller Attorneys 
Date of hearing: 10th April 2013
Date of Judgment: 3rd May 2013