CAPE TOWN — More than 160 people occupying Transnet-owned properties in Woodstock and Salt River have suffered another legal setback after the Western Cape High Court refused their application for leave to appeal an eviction order.
The latest ruling follows a lengthy legal dispute over the occupation of a number of Transnet-owned properties near Cape Town’s N1, where the court was presented with evidence concerning crime in the surrounding area, attacks on motorists and cyclists, damage to infrastructure and a network of underground tunnels beneath some of the occupied properties.
Judge Derek Wille refused leave to appeal on 28 September 2026, finding that the occupiers had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of successfully appealing the original eviction judgment or another compelling reason for an appeal.
The decision leaves the original eviction order in place.
161 people ordered to leave Transnet land
The original eviction application was brought by Transnet against people occupying several properties in Woodstock and Salt River.
The case initially involved approximately 282 people, but the final eviction proceedings concerned 161 occupiers across 10 parcels of Transnet-owned land.
Some of the people living on the properties told the court that they had been there for many years, with some occupations dating back more than a decade.
In July, Judge Wille ordered the 161 occupiers to vacate the properties by 30 September 2026.
The order provided that, should they fail to leave, the Sheriff of the High Court could remove the occupiers, their possessions and structures unlawfully erected on the land. The Sheriff could also request assistance from the South African Police Service if necessary.
The 30 September deadline has now passed.
The latest judgment dealt with the occupiers’ attempt to obtain permission to appeal the original order rather than constituting the physical eviction itself.
Underground tunnels discovered beneath the properties
One of the most unusual pieces of evidence considered during the original proceedings concerned underground tunnels beneath the occupied properties.
According to the evidence before the court, an inspection of the properties revealed a series of connected tunnels running underneath the sites.
The court was told that the tunnels were alleged to have been used to store drugs and stolen goods.
The existence of the tunnels formed part of the wider body of evidence placed before the court concerning criminal activity in and around the occupied properties.
The court did not determine that every person living on the properties was personally responsible for the alleged criminal activity.
Instead, Judge Wille considered the evidence concerning the location, the reported criminal incidents, the physical characteristics of the occupied sites and the information presented about activity taking place around the properties.
The court ultimately accepted that the evidence, considered collectively, supported an inference that the occupation was being used as a base for criminal activity.
Crime evidence presented to the court
The eviction case included extensive evidence about crime in the vicinity of the occupied properties.
According to evidence placed before the court, 74 common robberies, 20 robberies involving weapons other than firearms, seven firearm robberies and one vehicle hijacking occurred near the properties during an eight-month period.
The court also considered footage captured by the City’s freeway management system showing incidents including cable theft, robberies and theft from motor vehicles along the N1.
The location of the occupied properties was particularly significant because they are positioned close to a section of the N1 where traffic can slow down.
Evidence before the court included reports of motorists being targeted and infrastructure being damaged in the area.
During December 2025 and January 2026, law enforcement officials attended seven incidents in which vehicles were reportedly attacked with bricks and damaged.
Evidence concerning attacks on cyclists was also placed before the court.
A dilapidated building near a bridge was identified in connection with an area where stripped cables were stored, while extensive damage to safety fencing was also observed during the proceedings.
Occupiers disputed the connection between the residents and crime
The allegations concerning criminal activity were disputed by the occupiers and housing organisation Ndifuna Ukwazi.
Their argument was that the authorities had not produced direct evidence connecting the individual occupiers to particular crimes.
They pointed out that some of the residents had cooperated with Transnet, the City of Cape Town, the Department of Home Affairs and Ndifuna Ukwazi during surveys and the collection of personal information.
The occupiers argued that criminal incidents occurring around the properties could not automatically be attributed to everyone living there.
This distinction is important because the eviction judgment was not a criminal conviction against the 161 occupiers.
The court was dealing with whether the occupation of the properties should continue and whether eviction would be just and equitable, rather than determining the criminal guilt of individual residents.
Judge Wille nevertheless considered the evidence about the surrounding criminal activity and the properties collectively when reaching his decision.
Transnet’s need for the land
Transnet’s case was not based solely on the allegations of criminal activity.
The state-owned company told the court that it required the properties for its commercial activities and future development.
The occupied land is situated alongside the N1 in the Woodstock and Salt River area and is close to several business districts.
Transnet sought to regain control of the properties and have the unlawful occupation brought to an end.
The court ultimately granted the eviction order in July.
Dispute over emergency accommodation
Another major issue in the case was what would happen to the people living on the properties if they were evicted.
The occupiers argued that an eviction would not be just and equitable if it resulted in people being left homeless without alternative accommodation.
The City of Cape Town opposed being compelled to provide emergency accommodation to the occupiers.
The City told the court that its emergency accommodation facilities were already full and that national funding for emergency housing had been severely restricted.
Judge Wille found that the availability of alternative accommodation was an important consideration in an eviction case, but that it was not an absolute requirement in every case.
The court also found that the evidence before it did not establish that the occupiers would necessarily become homeless if the eviction was carried out.
The occupiers had been given an opportunity to provide additional information about their personal circumstances, including matters concerning their families, children, employment and other circumstances.
However, the court found that the information placed before it was insufficient to establish that eviction would necessarily result in homelessness.
Proposal to use other Transnet land rejected
The possibility of using other vacant Transnet land to accommodate the occupiers was also considered.
The court rejected this approach, with Judge Wille finding that moving the occupiers onto other Transnet property could effectively allow them to bypass people who had followed the formal processes for accessing housing.
The court therefore concluded that the eviction could proceed without making the provision of alternative accommodation an absolute condition.
Latest appeal attempt fails
Following the July eviction order, the occupiers sought leave to appeal.
Ndifuna Ukwazi argued that the original judgment had failed to properly account for the absence of direct evidence connecting individual occupiers with criminal activity and raised concerns about the consequences of evicting people without emergency accommodation.
The application was considered by Judge Wille, who delivered his latest ruling on 28 September 2026.
The court refused leave to appeal.
The judge found that the occupiers had not demonstrated reasonable prospects of success on appeal and had not established another compelling reason for the matter to proceed to an appeal court.
What happens next?
The refusal of leave to appeal leaves the original eviction order standing.
The initial order required the 161 occupiers to vacate the properties by 30 September 2026. If they remained on the land, the Sheriff was authorised to enforce the order and could seek police assistance if required.
The latest judgment does not itself mean that the physical eviction has already taken place.
It concerns the occupiers’ attempt to obtain leave to appeal the original eviction order.
The case has therefore brought together several separate issues: Transnet’s right to regain control of its property, evidence concerning serious crime around the occupied sites, the discovery of underground tunnels, the safety of motorists and cyclists using the nearby N1, and the constitutional questions surrounding the eviction of people who may have limited housing options.
For the occupiers, the latest ruling represents another legal setback after the Western Cape High Court previously ordered them to leave.
For Transnet, the judgment leaves the eviction order in force as the company seeks to regain possession of the properties.
The court’s findings regarding criminal activity were based on the evidence presented in the eviction proceedings and should not be interpreted as a finding that every individual occupier committed a crime.
The central legal issue remains the occupation of Transnet-owned land and whether that occupation can continue in the circumstances considered by the court.
