Bromwell, Bremner, New Market Junction, and a Brief History of UCTs Questionable Relationship with Equitable Housing Rights
By Ziyaad Shaboodien
After a decade-long legal battle, residents of Bromwell Street, Woodstock were finally heard in the Constitutional Court. While waiting for the conclusion of the case, one cannot help but reflect on UCT’s appearances in previous eviction and equitable housing cases.
In 2014, residents of Bromwell Street, Woodstock resisted eviction orders after private developers purchased their homes. On the 27th of February 2024, their case was finally brought before the Constitutional Court, marking a historic legal examination of equitable housing policies and evictions. However, over the past decade, the University of Cape Town (UCT) has been involved in its own notable and controversial eviction cases.
The Bromwell legal battle doesn't originate from the eviction itself, which ultimately couldn't be contested, but from the City of Cape Town's decision to offer temporary alternative accommodation to residents of Wolwerivier – an informal settlement far from the central business district with limited access to public services and amenities – due to the residents' inability to afford housing in Woodstock or Salt River.
Ndifuna Ukwazi, representing the Bromwell residents before the Constitutional Court, has argued that the City's decision echoes the spatial planning of the Apartheid era and violates the Constitution by making the residents' lives significantly more challenging. They contend that the temporary alternative accommodation should, constitutionally, be closer to the original eviction site.
This question of alternative accommodation isn't unique to this case. Just last year, in July 2023, a case between Cape Peninsula University of Technology (CPUT) and students occupying the New Market Junction residence concluded at the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA).
The students at New Market Junction refused to vacate the residence during the December academic holidays, primarily because they had no other home to return to. CPUT then sought eviction through a court order, which the students resisted, resulting in a case before the Western Cape High Court. The court ruled that New Market Junction counted as a primary home for the students and that eviction couldn't be based solely on a court order.
CPUT appealed to the SCA, arguing that a student residence couldn't be considered a home, and they had the right to evict solely based on a court order. UCT supported CPUT as an “amicus curiae,” presenting the argument that a student residence is merely an aspect of the right to access higher education, and universities have the authority to regulate access to student accommodation. However, the issue of temporary alternative accommodation remained unsatisfactory.
This situation reflects the Bremner Residence case, where students occupying the Bremner Residence in 2015 were issued eviction notices by UCT. When resolved in 2017, UCT's statement seemingly lacked consideration for the students being evicted from the residence.
The common theme among these cases is the lack of consideration for individuals. It's not uncommon for vulnerable persons, especially youth and students, to fall victim to unjust and inequitable evictions and housing policies. It has been argued in the Bremner case by the Students’ Representative Council, in the New Market Junction case by the students' lawyers, and in the Bromwell Case by Ndifuna Ukwazi: it's unconstitutional for the court, and consequently, the institution, to evict without considering the individual circumstances of the evictees, even when providing temporary alternative accommodation, which often proves to be substandard.
When vulnerable individuals are faced with the choice of unjust temporary alternative accommodations or homelessness, it's disheartening to witness institutions, particularly UCT, actively shaping housing legal frameworks in ways that make it easier to deny individuals proper, equitable housing rights.