Cape Town Underground drug tunnels exposed as 281 occupiers lose Transnet eviction battle - IOL

1008738036__20260903__0 One section of informal structures located on the state-owned Transnet Land in the vicinity of Salt River and Woodstock.

People occupying Transnet properties in Cape Town, where tunnels were used to store drugs and stolen goods, have lost their bid to overturn their eviction.

The Western Cape High Court refused about 281 occupiers, whose “full and further particulars are unknown” leave to appeal an eviction order involving Transnet properties in Woodstock and Salt River.

The court had been presented with evidence of extensive crime in the area, including crime statistics, the concentration of criminal activity around the properties and what was found during an inspection of the sites.

This included “a series of tunnels situated beneath the occupied properties which were alleged to be used for the storage of drugs and stolen goods”. Judge Wille found the evidence supported the inference that the occupation was operating as a base for criminal activity.

The occupiers argued that the City of Cape Town had to prove that specific people living on the properties had committed specific crimes.

Wille said this was not a criminal trial, and the issue was whether the evidence, considered collectively, allowed the inference that the occupation was being used as a base for criminal activity and whether this was relevant to deciding if the eviction was just and equitable.

The judge considered the crime statistics, the concentration of criminal activity nearby, the tunnels and other structures within the occupied areas and findings from the inspection.

The occupiers, meanwhile, relied on general denials and failed to provide evidence supporting a competing explanation, the court found.

Wille said the City had presented “detailed, uncontroverted evidence showing that the property served as a base for criminal enterprise”. He added that “tunnels under the property used to store drugs and stolen goods were discovered during the inspection in loco”.

The occupiers also challenged their eviction on the basis that they had not been provided with emergency accommodation. However, Wille said alternative accommodation, while important, was not an absolute requirement before an eviction could be granted.

“I was mindful that homelessness is a very relevant consideration and thereby accepted that alternative accommodation is an important consideration. 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,” the judgement reads.

Although about 281 people were represented, only 106 additional affidavits were submitted after the court ordered that more information be provided. Some conflicted with information provided by the occupiers' spokesman, whose affidavit contained hearsay about the circumstances of several occupiers.

“Undoubtedly, the occupiers themselves were obligated to place their personal circumstances before the court, as this information lies peculiarly within their knowledge. The court afforded the occupiers a specific opportunity to place that information before it,” the judge wrote.

The occupiers also argued that the City had land and resources available to provide emergency accommodation.

Wille said the question was not whether land could hypothetically be identified somewhere in Cape Town, but whether suitable land was actually available in the circumstances of the case.

The occupiers had failed to demonstrate realistic prospects of success or another compelling reason for an appeal, said Wille. Their application for leave to appeal was refused, with no order as to costs.