Two students living out of a car and a tent in a parking lot, will continue to live there, as the university's court bid for eviction recently failed.
Image: Meta AI
Two students living out of a car and a tent in a parking lot adjacent to the University of Cape Town’s hockey fields will continue to live there, as UCT's court bid for eviction recently failed.
This, while the university is yet to determine its way forward, after Acting Judge of the High Court, Mushahida Adhikari, ordered that the university would need to seek its eviction in fresh proceedings brought in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998.
The students - Lwazi van Staden and Mveliso Kraai - argued that both their parents have passed away, and they have no home to return to. If they are evicted from the parking lot, they argued, they would face the immediate risk of homelessness.
Since December, the students have erected a tent in the parking lot, parked a vehicle next to the tent, and taken up occupation of the tent and the vehicle.
This comes after the Western Cape High Court granted eviction orders on June 13, 2025, against five students who resided at the university's Philip Kgosana Residence (PK residence).
UCT spokesperson Elijah Moholola said: “The University of Cape Town notes the judgment handed down by the Western Cape High Court. The university will consider the ruling and then determine its next steps in light of the court’s findings.”
The background to the eviction action traces back to the university having made offers to the students for placement at the student accommodation in Mowbray for the 2024 academic year, subject to the proviso that the PK residence would be decommissioned to address maintenance issues.
In the eviction being given the green light, the court directed the respondents to vacate the PK residence by August 31, 2025, and if they failed to do so, the Sheriff of the court was authorised to evict the respondents from the PK residence.
However, this was subsequently extended when the parties concluded a settlement agreement which was made an order of court in terms of which, inter alia, the date by which the respondents were to vacate the PK residence was extended to December 20, 2025.
The students undertook to vacate the PK residence by December 20, 2025, but failed to do so and the Sheriff of the court then executed the eviction order.
The Sheriff placed the belongings of the students in a parking lot owned by UCT, which is where Van Staden and Kraai continue living, some distance away from the PK residence, after three others from the initial court litigation have since found alternative accommodation.
In its arguments before court, UCT argued that the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Stay At South Point Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mqulwana and others (UCT intervening as amicus curiae) was authority for the proposition that purpose built student accommodation of limited duration does not constitute a ‘home’ for PIE and that as a consequence, the unlawful occupation of a university-owned parking lot following the breach of an undertaking embodied in a court order to vacate a university residence also cannot attract the protections of PIE.
The court, however, disagreed with UCT arguments and held that the students are entitled to the protections afforded by PIE.
Acting Judge Adhikari said: “Contrary to UCT’s contention, Stay at South Point cannot be interpreted as establishing an immutable principle that the unlawful occupation of a university parking lot following the breach of an undertaking embodied in a court order to vacate a university residence deprives a student of the protection of PIE.
“Any such principle would impermissibly operate to prevent a court from considering the facts of each matter to determine whether the parking lot in question has, as a fact, become the home of the student in question. Put differently, 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 occupiers are entitled to the procedural and substantive protections afforded by PIE.”