[ad_1]
At one point, he ran a business from a section of the property, but it always remained his family’s home despite the fact that he and his wife moved into a nursing home, leaving six tenants on the property.
Langer said he received a state pension of R1,600 and supplemented his income through rents from tenants, some of whom have been there for more than 20 years.
Read the court order and the sworn statement of foundation.
He first learned of the expropriation through a newspaper advertisement in June 2012, which reflected compensation of around R19,000.
“I did not want my property expropriated, much less for such a small amount of money,” he said. “The quantity supplied was much less than it was worth.”
He said he objected in writing and then attended a meeting with city officials where he raised his objection again.
In 2014, he paid a private appraisal that determined it to be R230,000. He presented this to the municipality but never received a response.
Then, in 2016, he was shocked to find that the property had been registered in the municipality’s name in November 2014, without his ever consenting or a court determining what was fair and equitable compensation.
He approached the Legal Resource Center (LRC), which took the case before the municipality. He replied that only the vacant lot had been expropriated and that the part of the property with the buildings would be returned to him.
Despite this guarantee, he received a letter from a lawyer in 2016, informing him that the municipality was seeking judicial authorization to evict him and his tenants.
The LRC contested this and the eviction request was withdrawn.
He then began the process before Judge Madondo, saying that he still had no legal rights to the property, describing his “precarious position” and alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
His lawyers argued that the law states that if a landlord does not request the court to determine compensation before a certain date, they will be deemed to have consented to the municipality’s offer of compensation. But this is inconsistent with the Constitution and limits the ability of homeowners to exercise their rights to oppose any compensation offered, placing the burden on them to refer the matter to court within a stipulated time.
Langer said: “For homeowners like myself, who have no legal knowledge and means to pay attorneys, this effectively excludes their right to fair and equitable compensation or to consent or object to it.”
It was further argued that the law allowed the state to help itself. The municipality also failed to give him a personal notice of the planned expropriation and then made no commitment to him at all. Despite his promises, he had not returned the part of the land where the buildings are located either.
In terms of the consent order, the municipality must transfer all the property to Langer within three months, pay the costs of this and the costs of the court application.
This article was first published by GroundUp.
[ad_2]
