Home affairs officially opened its new office at Hemingways Mall on Monday, even as a court battle over the relocation continues.
The long-delayed move from Fleet Street to the upmarket mall, originally scheduled for last week, finally went ahead, with steady foot traffic throughout the morning.
The relocation has attracted criticism from political parties and members of the public since it was announced in June.
The department has now fully shifted operations to the 3,500m² space in the mall’s east wing, recently refurbished to accommodate the branch.
Last week many had first gone to the old building in the CBD, where posters redirected them to the mall, only to discover that the mobile units meant to assist them were inactive due to a broken generator.
On Monday, services were up and running and the space was full.
This comes as the lease dispute between the state and its former landlord, Blue Beacon Investments, is set to be heard in the Pretoria high court on Tuesday.
Blue Beacon filed a rule 41A mediation notice last week, seeking the court’s approval for an independent mediator in its dispute with the department of public works, the custodian of state property.
Rule 41A requires all litigating parties to indicate whether they agree to mediation.
In its application, Blue Beacon said the disagreement was both commercial and administrative, dealing with the lease of immovable property and the procurement of state accommodation.
It argued that the case raised complex questions about the roles of user and custodian departments under the Government Immovable Asset Management Act (GIAMA), and said it still had a valid lease with the state running until May 2026.
It proposed that mediation costs be shared equally.
As such the costs to relocate the department of home affairs have largely been incurred by [Hangar 18] already and these costs will be recovered over the period of the lease agreement from the rental payable by the department of home affairs
— Hangar 18 co-founder Warren Lawlor
Home affairs, public works, their respective ministers and mall owners Hangar 18 Investments were cited as respondents. Hangar 18 has filed a notice of intention to oppose the matter.
On Monday Blue Beacon’s lawyer, Sean Sim, confirmed that Hangar 18 had filed its affidavit.
In it, Hangar 18 co-founder Warren Lawlor said scrapping the company’s lease with the state, as Blue Beacon wanted, would cause severe prejudice as the company had already spent about R18m preparing the premises for home affairs.
He said Hangar 18 had also granted the department a tenant installation allowance of more than R2m.
“As such the costs to relocate the department of home affairs have largely been incurred by [Hangar 18] already and these costs will be recovered over the period of the lease agreement from the rental payable by the department of home affairs,” Lawlor said.
In his answering affidavit, Blue Beacon director Jean du Plessis said Hangar 18’s opposition was based on material factual inaccuracies and a fundamental misunderstanding of the applicable law.
He accused the company of portraying itself as an innocent commercial party, saying this was misleading.
Du Plessis alleged that Hangar 18 was a direct beneficiary of a procurement process, conducted in secrecy and in flagrant violation of Section 217 of the constitution and [GIAMA].
“It seeks to protect an advantage unlawfully obtained. The affidavit [Hangar 18’s] fails to address the core illegalities raised.
“Instead, it relies on technical defences and the assertion that the relocation is a fait accompli. As the new evidence reveals, this is false.
“The situation on the ground is chaotic, characterised by public frustration and attempts on the part of the department of home affairs to operate from temporary structures in a parking lot and/or a basement.”
Du Plessis further argued that Hangar 18 had failed to disclose the purported lease agreement with home affairs or public works.
“Hangar 18 alleges expenditure of R18m based on this agreement, yet fails to take the court into its confidence by disclosing the document authorising the expenditure and governing its recovery from public funds.
“The inference is inescapable. The agreement, if it exists, cannot withstand legal scrutiny,” he said.
Sim said the state had also filed its intention to oppose, but its affidavit had not been submitted by the time of publication.
The matter is set down for Tuesday.
Daily Dispatch
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.