Year: 2009 (Date of Decision: 10 June, 2009)
Forum, Country: Constitutional Court; South Africa
Standards, Rights: Reasonableness; Right to adequate housing; Right to an adequate standard of living
Summary Background: Around 20,000 occupiers of the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Cape Town appealed an order for their eviction. The order was issued by the High Court on the basis of a petition from government agencies and a housing company developing low-income housing at the site. The housing company pledged temporary accommodation, but did not guarantee any permanent housing to the occupiers.
Holding: The Constitutional Court analyzed the evictions in question against the reasonableness standard, referenced precedents in this area of review, such as the Grootboom case, and held that while there might have been more meaningful engagement with the residents who were established as “unlawful occupiers”, overall the eviction action was reasonable [paras. 6, and 115-118]. Given that the eviction was sought for the purpose of developing low cost housing with safe and healthy conditions as a step to progressively realizing the right of housing for those living in extreme conditions of poverty, homelessness or intolerable housing, as well as that the respondents had since assented to a significant allocation of the new development for the present occupiers to account for their dire housing needs, the judgement considered that the government had acted in a reasonable manner in seeking to promote the human right to housing [paras. 138, 139, 172-175, 228 and 234]. However, as regards the eviction, the court order stipulated, based on a suggestion by the respondents, that adequate alternative temporary accommodation meeting court-specified standards had to be provided [para. 10] and the occupiers’ expectation that 70 percent of the houses in the new development would be allocated to them had to be fulfilled if they qualified for the housing [paras. 5 and 400].
The Court further mandated that there must be individual engagement with householders before their move, including on the timetable for the move and other issues, for instance, assistance with moving their possessions, and the provision of transport facilities to schools, health facilities and places of work. Additionally, the Court specified that the accommodation had to be ensured at the point of eviction [paras. 5 and 400].
Additional Comments: In this case, the standard of reasonableness review is difficult to evaluate, as the emphasis of the Court is on achieving consensus between the two parties, rather than scrutinizing the State policy for compliance with its housing right obligations under the Constitution. It becomes clear when looking at the various case law invoking the reasonableness test as a standard of review, that it “allows the court considerable freedom when assessing the constitutionality of State action”. (Kirsty McLean, Constitutional Deference, Courts and Socio-economic Rights in South Africa, p. 173). The emphasis on the need to comply with certain procedural protections before any eviction can take place (and the reference in this context to General Comment 7 of the CESCR) [paras. 236 and 237] highlights the State’s duty to respect the right to housing while the focus of the State’s long term plan to progressively realize the human right to housing elevates the State’s duty to fulfil the right.
Link to Full Case: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/2009/16.html
