IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISIO N, CAPE TOWN )
Case number: 2025 -037004
In the matter between:
THE UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN Applicant
And
ZINZI VILLO
First Respondent
SIYASANGA MONYAI LAGU
Second Respondent
WITNESS BOTE
Third Respondent
LIZANNE ISAACS
Fourth Respondent
VICTORIA MACHIPISA
Fifth Respondent
AMUKELANI HERMANDO MAYIMELE
Sixth Respondent
NANDE MAGWA
Seventh Respondent
MARTIN KIRIINGYA
Eighth Respondent
AKINTUNDE MAKINDE
Ninth Respondent
THULANI TSHABALALA
Tenth Respondent
SILULUNDI COKI
Eleventh Respondent
LWAZI VAN STADEN
Twelfth Respondent
MVELISO KRAAI
Thirteenth Respondent
ALL THOSE HOLDING TITLE UNDER AND UNLAWFULLY
OCCUPYING PHILIP KGOSANA RESIDENCE UNDER THE
FIRST TO THIRTEENTH RESPONDENTS Fourteenth Respondent
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 13 JUNE 2025
VAN ZYL AJ :
Introductio n
1. This application , by its nature, spotlights the reality that many South Africans
have to deal with: where to live, quite apart from how to sustain the other
aspects of daily life. Part of this reality is the fact that one cannot always hold
on to the space that one has called home whilst a student at a tertiary institution .
2. The applicant (“UCT”) seeks the ejectment of the respondents, who are all – by
now - in unlawful occupation of the UCT student accommodation known as the
Philip Kgosana residence in Mowbray . As will be explained below, the
residence requires repair, and no students were placed there for the 2025
academic year.
3. The first to seventh, tenth, and twelfth to fourteenth respondents oppose the
application, which was instituted on 18 March 2025 and served on the
respondents on 19 March 2025. The application was se t down in the urgent
lane for hearing on 9 April 2025. On that day, the application was postponed
to 10 June 2025 to afford the respondents an opportunity to engage legal
representation. A timetable was set out for the delivery of answering and
replying affidavits, as well as heads of argument. All of the opposing
respondents, except the seventh respondent, delivered affidavits . Some
furnished the Court with heads of argument, and all of them briefly described
their personal circumstances to the Court during the hearing. They did so in
person, as none had obtained representation. They were dignified and sincere,
and the Court was grateful for their input .
4. I proceed briefly to set out the relevant facts. A short discussion of the legal
principl es which govern the situation follows thereafter.
The residence
The need for renovations
5. The residence consists of three separate apartment buildings of similar scale
and footprint, comprising 41 living units in total. Thirty -one1 of those units are
vacant , because the residence is in a state of disrepair, and requires substantial
renovations. The structural issues are described in the papers .2 They include
damaged roofing, structural cracks in the staircases , and sagging flooring. The
entire electrical and fire system requires replacement. The water and sanitary
systems need attention. There is a myriad of other aspects to the required work
which compromise the safety of the respondents, creat ing an environment that
is unsuitable for human habitation.
6. Some of the respondents dispute UCT's claim that the state of the building s
1 The eighth, ninth, and elevent h respondents vacated their units prior to the hearing of the
application.
2 On the basis of a detailed assessment undertaken by construction consultants during 2023.
pose s imminent saf ety risks . They say that they do not understand why the
renovations are urgent, suggesting that UCT is opportunistically invoking the
assessment of the buildings to compel the respondents to leave. This is,
however, not the case that appears from the papers.
7. It is not disputed that UCT has a duty to provide its students with a safe living
environment conducive to learning, in order to assist with academic success.
A failure of this duty might have disastrous consequences. None of the
respondent s have adduced any evidence to counter UCT’s claim that the
residence is not habitable or safe in its present condition, as set out in the
condition assessment report obtained in 2023. The report outlines the condition
of the residence building s, highlight s the potential risks arising from such
condition, and sets out the proposed maintenance interventions. I t was
because of the findings in the report that UCT decided in 2023 that it would
close the residence for the 2025 academic year to undertake the reme dial work.
The report was quite obviously not compiled with the view to gain an advantage
in these proceedings .
8. All of the offers for a placement at the residence for the 2024 academic year
(which had been made to students in 2023 already) included a pro viso that the
decommissioning of the residence was planned so as to address critical
maintenance issues, and that UCT could not guarantee that the offerees would
be accommodated for the entirety of the 2024 academic year. The student
residence is therefor e not meant to be occupied at all at present.
9. The situation has , moreover, worsened since the 2023 assessment . A recent
site inspection has revealed further health and safety issues and structural
concerns, includin g mold in the bedrooms , waterproofing issues, uneven
walkways, stormwater drainage that needs attention, corroded pipes, damaged
roof tiles, the need for a proper fire system, and small aspects such as broken
locks. These issues cannot simply be put on the back burner. Without p roper
waterproofing, for example, water may seep into the roof structure, causing
wood rot, the rusting of metal components, and weakening of the overall
structure . Moisture infiltration c auses mold and mildew, which not only
damages the structure but als o poses health risks, including resp iratory issue s
and allergies.
10. In the circumstances, the urgency and necessity of the remedial work cannot
be denied , and the respondents' continued occupation exacerbates the risks
associated with the deteriorating cond ition of the building s, including the health
and safety risks to the respondents themselves, and their depend ants.
The placement process at UCT
11. As indicated, t he 2025 academic year had been earmarked for the undertaking
of this remedial work, and no new students were placed in the residence for
2025. The initial decision to close the residence was communicated to all
students who were offered a residence placement at the residence for the 2024
academic year, and they were advis ed to make alternative arrangements for
2025. Despite this, UCT has encountered significant resistance from the
respondents. They ask the Court to be compassionate, because they have
nowhere else to go . None of them suggests that they have made any plans as
yet. A strong underlying theme of the respondents’ submissions is that they
are entitled to remain in the residence as long as they wish to study, and
because UCT has previously allocated their units to them, they should be
allowed to remain in occupa tion indefinitely.
12. This entitlement is not apparent when one considers UCT’s placement process.
The provision of student accommodation is time -bound and is subject to
rotation. UCT prioritises its student accommodation for students who, absent
such accommodation, would not have access to further education. Its student
residences fall within three tiers: first -tier residences accommodate
undergraduate students, second -tier residences accommodat e senior
undergraduate and postgraduate students, and third -tier residences
accommodate senior postgraduate students, most of whom are older than 30
years old . Should students have spouses or children, they are allocated what
are referred to as family uni ts.
13. UCT regulates access to student accommodation in terms of its institutional
rules, which encompass UCT's Student Housing Admission Policy for 2022 to
2026 and its General Housing Information Handbook 2024 . The housing
system requires both newly enter ing and returning stud ents annually to apply
for residence accommodation. Housing offers for residences are made in the
preceding year. The Housing Handbook prescribes the length of the residence
year, and also makes provision for students to apply for va cation
accommodation, which falls outside of the official student residence year.
Student housing offers are subject to the following conditions:
13.1. UCT reserves the right to change the residence allocation should the
need arise, and no room is permanently reserved for a specific student .
13.2. Students need to have an academic offer or be eligible to continue or
renew registration as a student .
13.3. Students who have fees outstanding will have their offer cancelled.
13.4. Students who take up a residence place and do not complete academic
registration will be required to leave the residence , and will be liable for
the accommodation costs for the duration of their stay.
13.5. The use of university accommodation during the residence year is for
registered students only.
13.6. If the academic registration of a student lapses or is cancelled at any
time, all rights to accommodation c ease , and the student must vacate
the residence immediately.
13.7. Returning students are required to re -apply for accommodation each
year, which is subject to availability and to their continued enrolment at
UCT.
13.8. Those who say that they cannot leave the student re sidence for any
reason, have an option to book vacation accommodation, as is the
ordinary operating procedure with students who want to stay at UCT
during the vacation period.
14. All students who receive and accept offers for residence placements are
deemed to have read, understood and accepted the conditions in the Handbook
as well as the Admission Policy once they signed the letter of acceptance of
offer of a place in any of the UCT residences. As such, any breach or non-
fulfilment of any of the conditio ns may lead to UCT either cancelling or
withdrawing the student housing offer. Similarly, those who apply for vacation
accommodation agree to be bound by the terms and conditions of the vacation
accommodation application, the General Rules and the relevan t Handbook, as
well as any other applicable residence rules, policies and procedure s.
15. Anyone who t akes up a residence place but who fail s to complete the relevant
academic registration requirements within 14 days after the start of the lectures
for underg raduates, or by the end of the first week of March for postgraduates,
is required to leave the residence . UCT may further cancel the residence offer
made to any new or returning occupants who sign s into residence but fail s to
complete academic registratio n by 22 February in the relevant year .
16. All of these conditions are in place to enable UCT to meet its primary goals in
providing student housing. Students admitted to a student residence are
subject to these conditions, to the rules and policies of the residence, and to
UCT’s General Rules and Policies.
17. While the original circumstances leading to each respondent's occupation of
the residence differ, none of the respondents have UCT’s consent for their
continued occupation of the student residence. There is some dispute on the
papers as to whether certain of the respondents are currently registere d
students at UCT. This issue does not, however, take matters any further
because, whilst only registered students are allocated accommodation, the
mere fact that one is registered as a student does not entitle one to placement
at the residence. It is co mmon cause that none of the respondents was
allocated a place in the residence for the 2025 academic year.
18. On UCT’s papers, the first and third respondents were moved from UCT’s
Dullah Omar student residence to the residence in the beginning of 2023, whil st
they sorted out their academic registration issues. They did not, however,
complete their registration as students, and were not offered a residence
allocation for the 2024 or 2025 academic year. They are not currently
registered students at UCT.
19. The second and fifth respondents received offers for the residence for the 2024
academic year, subject to the conditions referred to earlier . As indicated, a ll
offers for a placement at residence for the 2024 academic year included a
proviso that the reside nce would have to be decommission ed to address the
maintenance issues referred to. UCT expressly did not guarantee that the
offerees would be accommodated for the entirety of the 2024 academic year.
The second and fifth respondents' offers were in any event revoked because
they failed to register as students for the 2024 academic year . They are not
registered students at UCT.
20. The fourth respondent received a placement in the residence in 2023 after
appealing UCT's decision not to allocate her a student residence placement.
The fourth respondent was not offered a residence allocation for the 2024
academic year, and her appeal against the non -allocation was unsuccessful.
She also failed to register as a student for the 2024 academic year, and is not
currently a registered student.
21. The sixth, seventh and tenth respondents received a residence offer for the
residence for the 2024 academic year, subject to the proviso referred to in
relation to the planned decommissio ning of the residence. The sixth and tenth
respondents are not registered students at the University , whilst the seventh
respondent has registered for a part -time degree.
22. The twelfth respondent was temporarily placed in the residence at the end of
2024 because his allocated residence, the TB Davie residence, was being deep
cleaned . He has since refused to vacate the residence , and is not a registered
student .
23. The thirteenth respondent was temporarily placed in the residence after not
having received a residence offer for the 2024 academic year. He has since
refused to vacate the student residence. The thirteenth respondent indicates
that he is in fact a registered student, but UCT has not been able to confirm that
that is the case.
24. It appears from the papers that n umerous engagements with the respondents
have taken place to resolve the situation without resorting to litigation. UCT is
a public institution with a limited budget, and the costs incurred in taking legal
steps would come from the Student Housing and Residence Life budget at the
expense of its other housing programmes . The record sets out the various
attempts, communications, and demands in detail . The fact that these
negotiations took place is common ca use.
25. Many of the respondents raise their alleged academic exclusion from UCT in
answer – they say that, because they cannot pay their fees, they cannot
registered as students, and thus cannot obtain student accommodation. The
respondents’ fee block disput es are not before this Court for determination.
They are without a doubt in an unenviable situation, but that does not elevate
their position to one of automatic entitlement to student housing.
The consequences of the respondents’ occupation of the units
26. Their lack of placement notwithstanding, th e respondents have refused to
vacate the units previously allocated to them. Those units are spread
throughout the three buildings . The effect of the respondents’ holding over is
that the remedial work cannot be undertaken in any of the buildings, because
the affected systems are interconnected. For example, all three of the blocks
are fed from the same electrical incomer. The electri cal system is not compliant
with current standards, and has to be upgraded. There is no fire detection or
public announcement system for any of the blocks. This makes the buildings
non-compliant form a fire safety compliance perspective, which in turn has
potential liability risks for UCT if there is an injury or harm to the current
occupants as a result of these deficiencies. No new occupants will be permitted
in the residence until the buildings are compliant and UCT has obtained new
occupancy certificat es.
27. The work must be undertaken as soon as possible, because the closure of this
residence exacerbates the dire, and well -publicized, shortage of student
accommodation. The delay in the effecting of the repairs will without a doubt
compromise students wh o seek access to student housing in 2026 . It is a well -
known fact that many students are unable to pursue their tertiary studies if they
do not have access to student accommodation . As counsel put it, the
accommodation offered in student residences forms part and parcel of, and is
directly linked to, its academic offering. The provision of such accommodation
fosters access to UCT's academic programmes, and ensures that a wider array
of people have the opportunity to study at UCT than would otherwise be th e
case.
28. Space is limited, and demand far exceeds capacity. This is part of the reality
to which I have referred at the outset of this judgment. In UCT’s case, about
two-thirds of the available residence space are occupied by eligible returning
students, leaving the remaining space available for new applicants each year.
Within this context, the respondents’ occupation of the units has a prejudicial
effect upon the wider student community .
29. In fact, the respondents’ failure to follow UCT’s pres cribed procedures allow
them to benefit from free accommodation at the expense of not UCT, but also
incoming students whose access to tertiary education is contingent upon
access to student accommodation.
30. The respondents' continued occupation of the resid ence has obvious financial
implications for UCT, including the significant operating expenses for staff to
safeguard the buildings, and the costs of the utilities incurred as a result of
having to keep the residence accessible to the respondents. These c osts are
additional costs, not costs in the normal course, that have been incurred due to
the respondents' unlawful occupation, and the funds therefor have to be
diverted from other important student housing programmes and initiatives that
have been budget ed for. The costs further include administrative and legal
expenses related to resolving the situation, and the cost of providing temporary
accommodation for students displaced by the respondents’ holding over.
31. This is the factual position , essentially c ommon cause . I turn to the
respondents’ legal position .
What about the law?
32. The respondents' principal defence is that the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from
and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (“PIE”) applies to these
proceedings. This is because the respondents regard the residence as their
home. They submit that they and their dependants have nowhere else to go.
33. One has compassion for the respondents’ situation, but the Supreme Court of
Appeal has laid down the law .
34. In Stay At South Point Properties (Pty) Ltd v Mqulwana and others (UCT
intervening as amicus curiae)3 the SCA held that PIE doe s not apply to the
unlawful occupation of student accommodation by persons in the position of the
respondents . The SCA held4 that:
“[13] … the provision of student accommodation is for a finite period of time and
it has a limited and defined purpose, that is, to accommodate students for the
duration of the academic year and thereby assist them to study at the university.
The arrangement is by its nature temporary and for a purpose that is transitory .
Students who are assist ed by CPUT with accommodation are well aware that
this valuable benefit is of limited duration. ”
3 2024 (2) SA 640 (SCA).
4 Stay at South Point supra para 13. Emphasis supplied.
35. The SCA accepted that the provision of student accommodation must be
considered within the context of the Higher Education Act 101 of 1997 . It held,5
in that context, as follows:
“[14] … UCT, for example, provides student accommodation, both on and off
campus, to 8040 students of some 28 000 students who are registered at the
university. The amicus submitted that student accommodation is primarily an
incident of the right to access to higher education, and higher -education
institutions, such as UCT, regulate ac cess to student accommodation in terms
of its institutional rules.
[15] In this regard, the amicus referred to the Policy on the Minimum Norms and
Standards for Student Housing at Public Universities (the Policy). The Policy,
in relevant part, states as follows:
‘The Policy is applicable to all public universities and pri vately owned
accommodation accredited by public universities. These Norms and Standards
should be incorporated into the criteria developed by each public university and
stipulated in the university's policy and rules. Private providers shall establish
clear and comprehensive standard lease agreements after consultation with
relevant University officials and student representatives. Universities should
rate and differentiate off campus student accommodation according to
standards set by each University. ’”
36. In the context of the current scarcity of student housing in the higher education
sector in our country, the SCA stated6 that:
“[16} … Those who are fortunate enough to benefit from accommodation
provided by CPUT know full well that each and every year new students come
to the university who legitimately look to the university for the very assistance
that the respondents enjoyed. Equity requires that those who have had the
benefit of accommodation should yield to those who have not. And nothing
about the position of the respondents suggests that this equitable principle
should not continue to apply. It is also for this reason, as the amicus reminded
5 Supra paras 14 -15.
6 Supra para 16. Emphasis supplied.
us, that student accommodation forms part of the larger policy frame work
of higher education. ”
37. The SCA emphasized that:
“[17] These features of the student accommodation made available to the
respondents indicate that this accommodation is not a home. It is a residence,
of limited duration, for a specific purpose, that is time -bound b y the academic
year, and that is, for important reasons, subject to rotation. ”
38. The SCA thus appreciated and highlighted the fact that, by its nature, student
accommodation is primarily an incident of the right to access to further
education . It interpret ed the provisions of PIE within this context, leading to the
conclusion that student accommodation is not a “home ” for purposes of PIE.
The reference to such accommodation being “subject to rotation ” is a frank
reminder of the fact that the right to furthe r education of other students will be
infringed, and in some instances denied altogether, if they are precluded from
being allocated student accommodation as a result of former or current
students holding over.
39. The respondents argue that, because they hav e depend ents, the principles set
out in Stay at South Point do not apply to them. I do not think the argument is
sound . The respondents' depend ents ho ld title under t he respondents, who
had been allocated family units in the residence precisely because they had
families . The purpose of the accommodation initially having been granted to the
respondents remained that of the provision of student accommodation, that is,
to enable the respondents - as students - to further their education. The
accomm odation was provided following compliance with the relevant rules and
policies governing UCT’s offers of student housing. For the reasons set out
earlier the respondents no longer qualify for accommodation at the residence.
The respondents’ intentions in relation to their occupation of the units do not
convert the intrinsic nature of the student accommodation into something that
it is not.
40. Whilst the object of the establishment of higher education institutions “is to
provide higher education and thereby to fulfil the constitutional objective that
access to further education be made available by the state to everyone ”, the
resources which are required do so are significant. Unlike schools, universities
are not within reasonable proximity of every local community and are not able
to offer courses in every learning special ity that a student might wish to pursue.
A particular student ma y therefor e have to attend a geographically remote
university to pursue a desired course. Higher education facilities are also
generally situated in larger towns and cities, and students from outside those
centres need accommodat ion when they are away from their h omes to attend
university during termtime .7 It is thus:
“ … to address those obviously incidental requirements for the adequate
fulfilment of their intended purpose of providing higher education that student
halls of residence are a universally encounter ed feature of establishments for
higher learning. The provision of such accommodation is integral to the central
purpose of universities and other institutions of higher learning. Student
residences provide not only necessary material assistance for studen ts in need
of accommodation, they also provide a measure of moral support by nurturing
a sense of community. ”8
41. If PIE applied in those instances where UCT offered family accommodation for
post-graduate students, the consequence would be that the university would
have to institute separate proceedings under PIE in relation to a former
student's dependents, with all of the attendant delays and its requirement s
relating to alternative accommodatio n. In that event, the right to further
education expressly protected by section 29(1)(b) of the Constitution , and which
informed the decision in Stay at South Point , would be rendered nugatory for
many other deserving students .9
7 See Ma-Afrika Hotels (Pty) Ltd v Cape Peninsula University of Technology 2023 (3) SA 621
(WCC) para 33.
8 Ma-Afrika supra para 33.
9 The Constitutional Court has emphasised the critical importance of the right to educatio n in a
young democracy like ours. Our Constitution explicitly recognises the transformative nature of
education and entrenches it as a socio -economic right: there “are few things as important for
the flourishing of a society and its people as education .” See Moko v Acting Principal of Malusi
42. As PIE is not applicable, UCT must meet the requirements for an order for
ejectment under the common law , namely that it is the owner of the residence,
and that the residence is occupied by someone else. Where there has been a
right to occupation the owner must, in addition, prove that the right no longer
exists or is no longer enforceable.10 This UCT has done on the papers.
Conclusion
43. Upon consideration of the matter, UCT has made out a proper case for the relief
sought. It has met the common law requirements to obtain an order for the
ejectment of the respondents. UCT is the lawful owner of the residence, and
the respondents have no consent or any other right in law to remain in
occupation thereof.
44. Counsel indicated at the hearing that the renovations were scheduled to
commence during August 2025, and that the respondents could thus be
afforded the opportunity of staying at the residence until the middle of that
month . I think, however, that the respondents should be allowed to vacate the
residence by the end of August 2025. Requiring them to leave in mid -August
– halfway through the month - will simply add to the difficulty of obtaining
alternative accommodation.
Costs
45. UCT has not sought costs against the respondents . I am in any event, in the
exercise of my discretion, not inclined to grant a costs order.
Order
46. The following order is accordingly granted :
Secondary School and others 2021 (3) SA 323 (CC) para 1.
10 See the discussion in Ndlovu v Ngcobo, Bekker and another v Jika 2003 (1) SA 113 (SCA), in
particular the judgment of Olivier JA.
46.1. It is declared that there is no agreement in place, and no right exists in
law, for the continued occupation by the respondents of the applicant’s
Philip Kgosana residence situated at 22 Main Road, Mowbray, Cape
Town (“the student residence”).
46.2. The first to seventh, tenth, and twelfth to fourteenth respondents (“the
respondents”) must vacate the student residence by no later than 18:00
on Sunday, 31 August 2025 .
46.3. This order shall be served by the Sheriff delivering a copy thereof to each
of the respondents personally. Should such personal service not be
possible, the eviction order shall be served on the respondents by:
46.4. the Sheriff affixing copies of the order to the doors of the rooms
occupied by each of the respondents as set out in the applicant’s
notice of motion; and
46.5. attaching a portable document format copy of the order to an
email to be sent by the applicant’s attorney of record to the email
addresses of each of the respondents as set out in the notice of
motion.
46.6. Should the respondents fail to comply with the order in paragraph 46.2
above, the Sheriff of th is Court, with the assistance of the South African
Police Services, to the extent necessary, is authorised to give effect to
the order by taking all steps necessary to eject the respondents fr om the
student residence, and to remove all of the respondents’ belongings from
the student residence.
46.7. It is recorded that the eighth and ninth respondent s had vacated the
student r esidence prior to the institution of the eviction application being
instituted, and the application has been withdrawn in respect of those
respondents. It is further recorded that the eleventh respondent vacated
the student residence prior to the hearing of the application.
46.8. There shall be no order as to costs.
____________ ________
P. S. VAN ZYL
Acting Judge of the High Court
Appearances:
For the applicant : Ms M. O’Sullivan, instructed by Fairbridges
Wertheim Becker
The first to seventh, tenth, and twelfth to fourteenth respondents in person
No appearance for the eight, ninth and eleventh respondents