SINKING CITY: Orange Grove sinkhole victim (81) languishes as Joburg defaults on court orders

Six years after a collapsed municipal stormwater culvert turned her Orange Grove, Johannesburg, property into a sinking hazard and forced her from her home, 81-year-old pensioner Sherley Markowitz remains trapped in an indefinite state of displacement.

Markowitz and her husband had purchased an older house in the suburb and completely renovated it, including turning the storerooms at the back into a hairdressing salon for Sherley. For years, they had experienced a minor damp problem in the house, dismissing it at the time without realising that the municipal stormwater drain beneath was already slowly collapsing.

Recalling the terrifying moment the disaster struck in late 2020, Markowitz said:

“I was in the house one day when I heard a loud noise – I thought one of the gutters was falling off the wall or roof and then, to my astonishment, I saw that half of my salon and half the back garden was collapsing before my eyes. Had I been in the salon, or if the gardener had been outside, we could have been injured.”

The collapse destroyed not only her property, but her livelihood, ending her home-based business which had been providing an income to supplement her pension.

Yet, despite a succession of binding high court judgments ordering the City of Johannesburg to remedy various aspects of the situation, the municipality has repeatedly failed to act. Instead, the City is spending millions on rent for her in a temporary flat, storage fees for her goods, legal fees and 24-hour security guards for an abandoned, unsalvageable house.

Chantelle Gladwin-Wood of Schindlers Attorneys took on the case for her on a pro bono basis, resulting in several high court applications, before different judges, each exposing deeper layers of municipal default.

Living in limbo

Reflecting on the psychological toll of the past six years, Markowitz admits to a sense of fatalism, noting that there was little she could do on her own against the municipal machinery. She is deeply grateful for her legal representation.

“Thank goodness for Chantelle [Gladwin-Wood], who has taken on the case pro bono. The City wanted to give us a room in the CBD, and she intervened.”

Despite having a roof over her head for now, Markowitz lives in constant anxiety.

“I am the piggy-in-the-middle. I feel powerless. My landlord wanted to sell the rental unit I am living in and then changed her mind when the council increased the rent substantially, but she could again decide at any time to sell.

“We have been enquiring, and no estate agent will even look for us the moment they hear the City of Joburg is paying. Our goods are in storage, and recently, the City did not pay for four months. The owners were about to auction off my possessions.

“We don’t know from day to day where we will be or what will become of us. We no longer have roots or our own home. I’m 81 and should be enjoying the home I worked for all my life. The mental anguish and stress should also be compensated.”

Four cases, no solution

The December 2020 urgent order: When the crisis first erupted in late 2020, Markowitz rushed to court as parts of her home began caving into a massive subterranean cavity. On 11 December 2020, Judge Leonie Windell granted an urgent order recognising the grave danger and commanding immediate municipal intervention.

What the court ordered: The City was directed to “within 5 (Five) days of the handing down of this Order, obtain reasonable alternative accommodation for the Applicants... at the Respondents’ own cost for the duration of the period required to rehabilitate the Properties and Water Channel,” alongside providing removal, storage facilities and security at the site.

The action plan: The court laid down strict, binding deadlines for the City’s engineers to draft preliminary design reports and detailed design reports, with construction slated to begin in May 2021, supported by a full-time resident engineer and geotechnical inspections.

The cost penalty: Highlighting the City’s initial obstinacy, the court ordered respondents to pay the costs on an “attorney and client scale”.

The July 2023 discovery order: As years passed without the promised repairs materialising, the applicants were forced back to court to combat stonewalling and a lack of transparency, leading to a contempt application. On 20 July 2023, Judge Evette Dippenaar intervened.

What the court ordered: The court compelled the City to deliver crucial documents requested under Uniform Rule 35(12) within 10 days, warning that failure to comply would grant the applicants leave “to apply to the above Honourable Court... for an order striking out the respondents’ defence”.

The cost penalty: Once again, the court penalised the municipality with punitive costs, ordering that “The respondents are to pay the costs of this application on an attorney and own client scale”.

The October 2025 interim order: By late 2025 – five years into the disaster – the City had begun defaulting even on its obligations to pay the displaced residents’ basic survival stipends. On 9 October 2025, Acting Judge HF Oosthuizen issued an emergency interim order.

What the court ordered: The City was ordered to “Make payment within 24 hours... of any arrear amounts in respect of the rental, security and/or storage” and establish advance payment mechanisms directly to the landlord, security providers and storage companies. Furthermore, it mandated a high-level meeting within 30 days to “reach consensus on the engineering plans to restore the culvert” and required strict compliance reporting heading into 2026.

The cost penalty: Costs were once again awarded on the punitive “scale as between attorney and own client, including the reasonable costs of the engineers of the Applicants”.

The October 2025 final urgent order: Just weeks later, facing continued friction and the need to transition the applicant to new accommodation, Justice Stuart Wilson handed down a final urgent order on 21 October 2025.

What the court ordered: The court reinforced all prior obligations from Judges Windell and Oosthuizen, explicitly directing that “The Respondents are to obtain reasonable, suitable, satisfactory, alternative accommodation for the First Applicant, with her cooperation and input, by no later than 31 October 2025” and relocate her by the end of November 2025.

The cost penalty: The court reiterated punitive cost orders, ruling that “The costs of this application be paid by the Respondents on the scale as between attorney and own client”.

The City’s response

The Johannesburg Roads Agency (JRA) and the City of Johannesburg offered the Daily Maverick no timeline for resolution, blaming ongoing bureaucratic hurdles.

In response to questions, the JRA said it remains “committed to progressing the permanent rehabilitation”, but conceded that the project is still stuck in preliminary design loops:

“The project is currently progressing through the outstanding detailed design and associated contractual processes required before construction can commence. These activities are being addressed in parallel with the process of securing the necessary construction funding.”

The JRA added that while a budget line item has theoretically been established, actual construction remains entirely contingent on future funding confirmations and procurement cycles. Even if work were to eventually start, the City estimated that physical construction would take an additional 18 months, concluding that “a definitive construction commencement and completion date cannot responsibly be confirmed at this stage”.

Gladwin-Wood points out a glaring absurdity: the cumulative cost of these temporary band-aids and endless litigation over six years far exceeds what it would have cost the City to simply buy out the homeowner at the outset.

As the municipality kicks the can down the road, ratepayers continue to foot the bill for an administrative failure that grows more expensive by the month, while an 81-year-old pensioner waits for justice that never seems to arrive, Gladwin-Wood said. DM