(Bloomberg) — Amazon.com’s plans to build an office in Cape Town should be allowed because it would be a blow to indigenous peoples trying to block development, according to a South African court.
The Western Cape High Court ruling said those opposing the project could not “provide that their rights to the heritage were at risk of being harmed”, while the cultural value of the site was “On the contrary, the documents indicated that the development could enhance the resources of the land given the state of degradation of the site when the permit was granted.”
Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust is developing the site Amazon planned to use as its flagship office in Africa, consolidating its workforce in the city and accepting new hires for its expansion. Amazon has expanded across the continent by building data centers and opening additional offices in Johannesburg and Lagos.
Africa’s rapidly growing young and tech-savvy population makes it an attractive market, but issues such as spotty internet and power access have historically limited growth in many countries. As the continent’s most developed economy, South Africa’s skilled workforce numbers and infrastructure have made it an attractive destination for international tech companies looking to expand, including Alphabet’s Google and Microsoft. .
The current battle over the Liesbeek site has resulted in many project delays for developers and the company.
In a statement on Tuesday, the Liesbeek Leisure Properties Trust said the ruling was “a major victory for all Capetonians who stand to benefit from the R4.6 billion ($260 million) project.” An Amazon representative declined to comment.
The court also said the first ruling in March, in which a judge ordered the development to stop while considering whether the indigenous peoples were properly consulted, was induced by fraud.
Defendant misrepresented information related to the Gorinhaikona Koi Koin Constitution and did not have the authority to initiate the lawsuit that culminated in the original judgment. Instead, they misrepresented their views.
A representative of the tribe fighting the development did not immediately comment.
The judgment was granted at the appellant’s expense.
