Court ends Transnet eviction fight after drug tunnels found under Cape Town land

The Western Cape High Court has refused leave to appeal an eviction from Transnet land in Woodstock and Salt River, standing by a finding that the occupation served as a base for crime.

Judge Derek Wille delivered the ruling on 28 September, after hearing the application on 17 September. He refused leave and made no order as to costs. The case is Transnet SOC Ltd v Those Persons Identified in Annexures F1 to F10 and Others, case number 2025-063967.

The papers describe the respondents as people whose full particulars are unknown to Transnet, unlawfully occupying portions of its land in Woodstock and Salt River, beside the N1. The judgment says the occupiers were represented in respect of about 281 people. GroundUp reported that the eviction order itself applied to 161 people. Only 106 further affidavits were filed after the court ordered more information.

Wille granted the eviction on 21 July and ordered the occupiers to leave by 30 September. Ndifuna Ukwazi, which represents them, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The City of Cape Town put up crime statistics, maps of incidents around the sites, and what an inspection found. Wille wrote that the evidence included “a series of tunnels situated beneath the occupied properties which were alleged to be used for the storage of drugs and stolen goods.” In the leave judgment he said the City had presented “detailed, uncontroverted evidence showing that the property served as a base for criminal enterprise,” and that “tunnels under the property used to store drugs and stolen goods were discovered during the inspection in loco.”

He also recorded the “undisputed existence” of tunnels and structures in the occupied areas. The finding is an inference in an eviction case. It is not a criminal conviction, and the judgment does not name anyone charged over the tunnels.

The occupiers argued that the City had to prove that named residents committed named crimes. Wille said this was not a criminal trial. The question was whether the evidence, taken together, allowed the inference that the occupation was being used as a base for criminal activity, and whether that was relevant to whether eviction was just and equitable. He said the occupiers relied on general denials and did not put up a competing explanation.

GroundUp reported that the City told the court of more than 100 attacks on cyclists in eight months near the sites, including 27 armed robberies. A note on the July judgment by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr recorded 44 arrests for criminal activity in six months, and the death of an elderly cyclist attacked near the properties. When GroundUp visited in July, residents said they were not responsible for crime in the area. Ndifuna Ukwazi has argued that there was no admissible evidence linking its clients to the crime, and that the joint inspection record did not refer to the tunnels.

The second ground was housing. The occupiers said an eviction without emergency accommodation was unlawful, especially at this scale. Wille disagreed. Alternative accommodation is important, he said, but it is not an absolute precondition. “Not one of the affidavits filed by the occupiers in terms stated that an eviction would render any of them homeless. It may be argued that this was inferred, but it was never stated.”

He called the further affidavits “vanilla standard-form” papers. Some conflicted with the spokesman’s affidavit, which he treated as hearsay on the circumstances of other occupiers. “Undoubtedly, the occupiers themselves were obligated to place their personal circumstances before the court, as this information lies peculiarly within their knowledge.”

Wille also rejected the claim that the City could simply find land somewhere in Cape Town. The question, he said, was whether suitable land was actually available in this case. The City had said its emergency accommodation was full. On foreign nationals, he said he had not ruled that undocumented people can never receive help. He found no basis, on the evidence, to compel emergency accommodation while immigration status remained unresolved.

He held that the appeal raised no novel legal issue and that the occupiers had shown neither a realistic prospect of success nor another compelling reason for leave.

Zamuxolo Gulwa, an attorney at the Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre, told GroundUp the organisation would study the judgment, consult the clients and discuss their options. Transnet has previously said the land is needed for port-related development and logistics in Cape Town.