Court Green-Lights Eviction of Over 1,800 Ballito Residents

The high court in Pietermaritzburg has ruled that the almost 1,800 residents of an informal settlement in Shakas Head, Ballito, may be evicted.

• The Pietermaritzburg High Court has ruled that over 1,800 people in Shakas Head informal settlement may be evicted.
• This may be done after KwaDukuza Municipality provides basic services and agrees on a detailed relocation plan to Vlakspruit Farm, 17km away.
• Shackdweller movement Abahlali baseMjondolo says the municipality must provide roads, sanitation, water, electricity, demarcated stands and transport before eviction, and report to court on progress.
• The municipality says the occupied land is zoned for a business park and unlawful occupation hinders development, while the community argues residents were displaced by previous housing projects.

The KZN High Court in Pietermaritzburg has ruled that over 1,800 residents of an informal settlement in Shakas Head, Ballito, may be evicted. However, this can only be done once the KwaDukuza Municipality has satisfied the court that is has provided basic services and there has been agreement on a “detailed plan” for the relocation of the community to Vlakspruit Farm.

Both the municipality and Abahlali baseMjondolo, the shack dwellers movement representing the community, claimed victory after the proceedings which came before Judge Sidwell Mngadi last Friday. While the municipality said the ruling enforced the importance of upholding the rule of law, while ensuring that people were not left homeless, Abahlali said Judge Mngadi had agreed to their draft order.

The order made on Friday states that those occupying the land must vacate it within one month. But the order is suspended, pending further court proceedings to determine whether an agreement had been reached between the municipality and the community. This should be a detailed plan on relocation logistics, the provision of basic services, and an agreement on what will happen to community members who would relocate to Vlakspruit, but who did not meet municipal low cost housing criteria.

Abahahli, in a statement, said basic services must include roads, sanitation, waste removal, water, and temporary electricity. The organisation also called for demarcating stands for each household, and relocating its members to a suitable area with access to schools, healthcare, building materials, and transport.

“Importantly, the municipality must also report to the court on the steps it has taken to meet these conditions before any eviction can proceed.

“The judgment means that either the municipality cannot move ahead to evict or it must meet the demands that the community developed to accept moving to a new site. Either way this is a victory.”

The movement has previously labelled the attempt to evict the community as racist, claiming residents of the upmarket suburb of Ballito “do not want us to live near them” but “want us to build, clean and secure their homes and businesses, and to care for their children and old people”.

The municipality has, in court proceedings, said the land was zoned for development as a business park. Previously it stated that it was to be used as a school or a clinic.

In written argument before Judge Mngadi, the municipality said it was common cause that it owned the land and the community was occupying it without consent.

It said there were no services and it could not be disputed that the occupation was a hygienic and safety hazard, not only to the occupiers but to surrounding residents.

The settlement could not be “formalised” into low-cost housing because of its zoning.

It argued there was no absolute entitlement under eviction laws for alternative accommodation to be provided.

“The occupation of the land unlawfully has serious implications and is significantly detrimental to the development and expansion of the municipality. The land was not occupied innocently.” it argued.

It said there municipality did not have alternative accommodation for so many people.

Lawyers for SERI, which represented the 1800-strong community, argued that there had been no good faith or meaningful negotiations, as was required by law in such eviction proceedings.

They said an eviction which would render people homeless and where there was no provision for alternative accommodation could not be “just and equitable”.

The occupiers, they said, had set up the informal settlement prior to 2020 after being left out from, or displaced by, previous housing projects in the area.

They said while the municipality had proposed that the community move to Vlakspruit Farm, which was some 17 km away, this had never been formalised.

(Our copy of the judgment is very poor so we have not linked to it. When we get a good quality version we will link to it.)

© 2025 GroundUp. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and GroundUp, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.

We put an invisible pixel in the article so that we can count traffic to republishers. All analytics tools are solely on our servers. We do not give our logs to any third party. Logs are deleted after two weeks. We do not use any IP address identifying information except to count regional traffic. We are solely interested in counting hits, not tracking users. If you republish, please do not delete the invisible pixel.