contradictions, they have not in my view established that they were resident in or occupied the structure at the time when it was demolished. In this regard, I found the evidence of Superintendent Simataa to be reliable. His evidence of patrols immediately before and preceding the demolition indicated that there was no occupation of the shed. This was also borne out by his evidence, backed up by the photographs, that the interior of the shed showed no indication of human habitation. The second explanation for his unequivocal statement under applicant’s oath on 20 February 2014 that the structure was unoccupied, which was itself repeated within that affidavit, was singularly unconvincing. He stated that he was emotionally caught up by the events and gave this as a reason for making what would otherwise be an entirely false statement under oath and purgering himself. When asked about the timing of his affidavit, it was confirmed that it was only taken down by Superintendent Simataa at about 17h00. It was taken down at his offices and not at the scene. Furthermore, the evidence of Superintendent Simataa, which had not been contested, was that the second applicant had co-operated with him. Whilst this did not amount to the consent on the part of the applicants to the demolition and dismantling of their structure which had started earlier, as was indicated in the answering affidavit, it would not support the second applicant’s explanation for his statement that the premises were not occupied (which he repeated in that affidavit) because he was under emotional strain. On the contrary, it would rather seem that he calmly dealt with the situation which had unfolded in a practical and commonsense manner by ensuring that parts of the structure which were still to be dismantled should be done so in a manner which would not unduly damage the components. But he also assisted in seeking to placate the unruly crowd which had gathered. There was also no suggestion of coercion in respect of the sworn statement he provided to Superintendent Simataa. His explanation that he was is also questionable in view of ‘emotional’ the fact that he made that affidavit at about 17h00, away from the scene and at Superintendent This was also not supported by Superintendent Simataa’s office. Simataa’s evidence.
contradictions, they have not in my view established that they were resident in or occupied the structure at the time when it was demolished. In this regard, I found the evidence of Superintendent Simataa to be reliable. His evidence of patrols immediately before and preceding the demolition indicated that there was no occupation of the shed. This was also borne out by his evidence, backed up by the photographs, that the interior of the shed showed no indication of human habitation. The second applicant’s explanation for his unequivocal statement under oath on 20 February 2014 that the structure was unoccupied, which was itself repeated within that affidavit, was singularly unconvincing. He stated that he was emotionally caught up by the events and gave this as a reason for making what would otherwise be an entirely false statement under oath and purgering himself. When asked about the timing of his affidavit, it was confirmed that it was only taken down by Superintendent Simataa at about 17h00. It was taken down at his offices and not at the scene. Furthermore, the evidence of Superintendent Simataa, which had not been contested, was that the second applicant had co-operated with him. Whilst this did not amount to the consent on the part of the applicants to the demolition and dismantling of their structure which had started earlier, as was indicated in the answering affidavit, it would not support the second applicant’s explanation for his statement that the premises were not occupied (which he repeated in that affidavit) because he was under emotional strain. On the contrary, it would rather seem that he calmly dealt with the situation which had unfolded in a practical and commonsense manner by ensuring that parts of the structure which were still to be dismantled should be done so in a manner which would not unduly damage the components. But he also assisted in seeking to placate the unruly crowd which had gathered. There was also no suggestion of coercion in respect of the sworn statement he provided to Superintendent Simataa. His explanation that he was ‘emotional’ is also questionable in view of the fact that he made that affidavit at about 17h00, away from the scene and at Superintendent Simataa’s office. This was also not supported by Superintendent Simataa’s evidence.