[14] The respondent’s answering affidavit provides a description of the premises as a and denies that the applicant permanently resided in it. [15] The first respondent goes on to state: shack was in the process of being built and was at all times unoccupied. ‘The The Applicant in fact moved into one of his late mother’s houses after she had passed on and still resides there and sometimes at his alleged dwelling in respect of which he was compensated. It is also evident from the photographs that the area in which he erected the illegal shack was just recently debushed. The bushes are still laying around and have not yet been removed.’ [16] The photographs support the description which the respondents give of the premises. It clearly looks like there has been recent excavation. The item referred to as a shack I would describe as a shed. Its natural floor inside is of the ground, where there is some grass. Mr Namandje, who appeared for the respondents, referred me to that grass. The grass itself on the colour photographs is green in colour. That would not be consistent with a structure having been there for some time, and on the applicant’s version since the previous year. The photographs also depict plastic on the ground on which cement is placed. There are also pieces of cut corrugated iron which Mr Namandje submitted with some force supported the contention of the erection of a recent structure. But what is compelling to me from the photographs is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever of any human habitation. [17] In the replying affidavit, it is not disputed that the photographs depict the structure, but it is stated that they have been selected to support the respondent’s version. It is not however stated in what respects they are either selective and do not properly depict what was there, except with reference to bedding and other items which the respondents deny removing.
[14] The respondent’s answering affidavit provides a description of the premises as a and denies that the applicant permanently resided in it. [15] The first respondent goes on to state: ‘The shack was in the process of being built and was at all times unoccupied. The Applicant in fact moved into one of his late mother’s houses after she had passed on and still resides there and sometimes at his alleged dwelling in respect of which he was compensated. It is also evident from the photographs that the area in which he erected the illegal shack was just recently debushed. The bushes are still laying around and have not yet been removed.’ [16] The photographs support the description which the respondents give of the premises. It clearly looks like there has been recent excavation. The item referred to as a shack I would describe as a shed. Its natural floor inside is of the ground, where there is some grass. Mr Namandje, who appeared for the respondents, referred me to that grass. The grass itself on the colour photographs is green in colour. That would not be consistent with a structure having been there for some time, and on the applicant’s version since the previous year. The photographs also depict plastic on the ground on which cement is placed. There are also pieces of cut corrugated iron which Mr Namandje submitted with some force supported the contention of the erection of a recent structure. But what is compelling to me from the photographs is that there is simply no evidence whatsoever of any human habitation. [17] In the replying affidavit, it is not disputed that the photographs depict the structure, but it is stated that they have been selected to support the respondent’s version. It is not however stated in what respects they are either selective and do not properly depict what was there, except with reference to bedding and other items which the respondents deny removing.
Ntuko%20v%20Omuthiya%20Town%20Council%20(A%20263-2014)%20[2014]%20NAHCMD%20322%20(2%20October%202014).docx