District Six families ordered to vacate Searle Street cottages

Five District Six families, who withstood apartheid’s forced removals, have been ordered to vacate these Victorian cottages. Archive photo: Ashraf Hendricks

• Five District Six families must vacate their Victorian cottages in Searle Street by 6 March, after acting magistrate Juan de Pontes granted an eviction order.
• Developer Ettiene Du Toit bought the properties from the Holy Cross Sisters for R2.45-million in 2014.
• De Pontes said the cottages provided “rare continuity” for families who stayed on the land when thousands were forcibly removed during apartheid, but said the law and not sentiment must be considered.

It is likely the end of the legal road for five District Six families who have spent years in the courts to stop their eviction from Victorian cottages in Searle Street which survived apartheid-era demolitions.

In a judgment handed down in December 2025, acting Cape Town magistrate Juan de Pontes granted an order in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE), in favour of the owner of the properties, Ettiene du Toit, a private developer.

De Pontes gave the families until 6 March to vacate their homes.

He ordered the City of Cape Town to provide temporary emergency housing and the Department of Social Welfare to assist them to find accommodation in a care or living facility.

GroundUp has not been able to ascertain if the residents will apply for leave to appeal his ruling.

De Pontes made the ruling in an ex tempore (oral) judgment in November and then provided written reasons in December.

The cottages initially belonged to the Holy Cross Sisters, who fought during apartheid against their demolition. The religious order sold the cottages in 2014 to Du Toit, a Mpumulanga-based developer, for R2.45-million. He subsequently served the residents with notices to vacate.

The residents approached the Western Cape High Court, seeking to set aside the sale agreement, claiming they had been given “lifelong tenure” by church officials. The court rejected this argument, finding their evidence to be unreliable, hearsay and inaccurate.

The PIE application proceeded in the magistrates’ court. The residents initially denied that they were unlawful occupants, but later abandoned this argument – “a concession properly made”, Du Pontes said.

The court then had to decide what would be just and equitable.

In opposing affidavits, the residents repeated what De Pontes described as “the prolix account of the history of the property’s occupation from 1928 onwards”, and argued that they would be rendered homeless if evicted.

De Pontes considered the affidavits, reports by social workers on the residents’ personal circumstances, and a report by the City which stated that it had no accommodation available near District Six. However, the City said it could refer some residents to social housing, old-age residential facilities, or provide emergency housing kits, depending on their income.

De Pontes acknowledged that the residents had strong ties to District Six and that the cottages provided a “rare continuity” for families who had been able to remain on the land while thousands of others were forcibly removed during apartheid.

However, the law, and not sentiment, had to be considered and the residents’ averments of homelessness were “baldly made”.

He said another relevant factor was that the residents had not paid rent, but had engaged in prolonged litigation, frustrating the owner’s rights.

“They have had ample warning to at least attempt to make arrangements for alternative accommodation of their own accord. They have known of the sale of the property for several years. They did nothing.”

Having weighed all the relevant factors, he found there could be no doubt that the owner was entitled to an eviction order, as the residents were in unlawful occupation.

However, he said, it was just, equitable and fair to set a vacation period that would enable the unlawful occupiers to vacate with dignity and find alternative accommodation, if possible.

He granted the eviction order, and gave the residents a little over three months to vacate.

On the issue of costs, he said, “The extraordinary duration of this matter has in no small way been caused by an unreasonable stance adopted by the [residents] who sought to use every opportunity, big or small, to postpone the matter to be heard to finality”.

While the owner had asked for punitive costs, De Pontes took into account that the residents were lay people, guided by their attorneys, who had been acting pro bono.

He ordered costs on a party to party scale against the residents.

Support independent journalism
Donate using Payfast