UCT Loses Bid to Evict Students Living in Campus Parking Lot

Imagine being forced out of your student accommodation, only to have your belongings dumped outdoors and being forced to live in a tent on campus grounds. This was the harsh reality for two former University of Cape Town (UCT) students after their residence was decommissioned. ​In a significant decision, the Western Cape High Court has handed down a major ruling, dismissing UCT’s urgent application to evict two former student residents from a campus parking lot. The ruling sheds light on the complex intersection of student housing, institutional land rights, and the constitutional protection against homelessness. The Origins of the Dispute: The legal battle stems from a broader housing and maintenance dispute that unfolded in late 2025: ●Decommissioning: UCT's Philip Kgosana residence in Mowbray was designated for decommissioning to address maintenance and safety issues. ​●Eviction Orders: Following legal action in mid-2025, the court ordered occupants to vacate the premises by August 31, 2025. This was later extended by a settlement agreement to December 20, 2025. ​The Parking Lot Occupation: When the deadline passed, the Sheriff of the court executed the eviction order on December 22, 2025, placing the occupants' belongings in a UCT parking lot adjacent to the hockey fields. The students—Lwazi Van Staden and Mveliso Kraai—erected a tent and began living in the parking lot. The High Court Ruling: Parking Lot as a "Home" UCT approached the courts to remove the two individuals from the parking lot, but Acting Judge Mushahida Adhikari dismissed the application. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of what constitutes a home: ​"Where the facts establish that a university parking lot or any other university property is the home of an unlawful occupier, PIE [Prevention of Illegal Eviction] finds application, and the unlawful occupier is entitled to the procedural and substantive protections afforded by PIE." The court found that the students faced a real risk of homelessness and had nowhere else to go, making the parking lot their primary shelter. Consequently, UCT was required to bring the eviction application in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (the PIE Act), which ensures that a court determines whether the eviction is "just and equitable." Because UCT did not follow this procedure, the application failed. Broader Implications and Next Steps: ​Sweeping Interdict Denied: UCT’s bid for a sweeping interdict that sought to prevent the respondents from accessing any property owned by the university in the future was also dismissed. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence proving that the individuals intended to unlawfully occupy the property again. ​Future Proceedings: If UCT wishes to pursue the eviction of Van Staden and Kraai from the parking lot, the university must institute fresh legal proceedings in compliance with the PIE Act. ​C6X MEDIA will continue to follow this story as UCT determines its next steps and as the debate surrounding student housing and the rights of vulnerable occupants in South Africa continues to unfold.