The University of Cape Town has failed in its attempt to remove former student residents from a campus parking lot.
This comes after the Western Cape High Court ruled that two occupants face a real risk of homelessness and are therefore entitled to legal protection against eviction.
How former UCT residents ended up in a parking lot
What began as a student accommodation dispute at UCT’s Philip Kgosana residence in Mowbray ended with former residents erecting a tent in a university parking lot.
According to court records, the residence had been earmarked for decommissioning to address maintenance issues, and UCT had not explicitly guaranteed accommodation for the full 2024 academic year.
After eviction orders were granted in June 2025, the parties reached a settlement agreement in August 2025, extending the vacate deadline to 20 December 2025.
Multiple attempts by the respondents to stay the execution of the eviction order failed.
When the deadline passed without compliance, the sheriff executed the eviction on 22 December 2025, placing the respondents’ belongings in a nearby UCT parking lot adjacent to the university’s hockey fields.
The court heard that the respondents subsequently erected a tent there and took up occupation.
UCT then launched fresh proceedings in February 2026, seeking their removal from the parking lot as well.
The court’s findings on homelessness and legal protection
Acting Judge Mushahida Adhikari dismissed UCT’s application entirely.
Central to the judgment was whether the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) applied to the respondents’ occupation of the parking lot.
UCT had argued that a Supreme Court of Appeal decision in Stay at South Point Properties v Mqulwana, established that purpose-built student accommodation does not constitute a “home” under PIE, and that this principle extended to the parking lot.
The court rejected this interpretation, finding that whether PIE applies is always a fact-specific inquiry.
“Where the facts establish that a university parking lot or any other university property is the home of an unlawful occupier, PIE finds application and the unlawful occupier is entitled to the procedural and substantive protections afforded by PIE,” Adhikari wrote.
On the evidence before the court, two respondents – Mr Van Staden and Mr Kraai – filed affidavits stating they could not return to their parental homes.
Van Staden’s mother had died in 2023, leaving him and his sister without a home.
Kraai stated that both his parents had died and that the PK residence had been his sole place of residence.
The court found that UCT had not placed any evidence before it to contradict these claims.
“On a balance of probabilities, the addresses that UCT relies on in the founding affidavit are no longer the homes of Mr Kraai and Mr Van Staden,” the judgment stated.
It concluded that both men faced a real risk of homelessness if evicted from the parking lot.
Why the other respondents were not evicted
The remaining respondents were in a different position.
Ms M, who had occupied the parking lot with her minor children after the eviction, told the court in oral submissions that she and her children no longer resided there, saying she did not feel safe without her husband present.
“She does not know the two male respondents who reside there,” the judgment noted.
The court found there was accordingly no basis to grant an eviction order against her.
Ms L, who had given birth via caesarean section to a premature baby in December 2025, was similarly no longer present at the parking lot by February 2026, appearing to have secured alternative accommodation as she had indicated she would.
Mr M had been allocated a place at UCT’s Obz Square residence and was not in occupation of the parking lot at all.
UCT’s bid for a sweeping interdict preventing all respondents from occupying any UCT property in future was also dismissed.
The court found there was insufficient evidence that any of the respondents were likely to unlawfully occupy UCT property again.
UCT must now bring fresh proceedings under PIE if it wishes to pursue the eviction of Van Staden and Kraai, where a court would be required to determine whether it is just and equitable to grant such an order.
There was no order as to costs.
