Share
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Share

Nature of the Case

Eviction Application under Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE); Whether eviction “just and equitable” considering relevant circumstances; Whether alternative land has or can be made available; Negative and positive obligations with respect to the right to housing; Relation between property rights and the right to housing of the landless.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

This case has provided advocates in South Africa and elsewhere with a basic defense against eviction from private property where no alternative accommodation is available.  It establishes that homeless people who have occupied land have to be negotiated with as people who have rights.  The decision limited the extent to which governments can argue, on the basis of the Grootboom “reasonableness” test, that as long as they have a reasonable housing policy, the needs of particular groups facing eviction can be ignored.

Significance of the Case

While holding that there is no unqualified constitutional duty on governments to provide alternative accommodation or land in any eviction, the finding that courts should be “reluctant” to grant evictions against relatively settled occupiers unless a reasonable alternative is available is a significant development in right to housing jurisprudence.  The application of this principle to eviction from private land is of major importance, as well as the requirement that the government engage meaningfully with the affected group of occupiers.

Groups Involved in the Case

F.W.A. Scott and Wf. Jurgens instructed by Port Elizabeth Justice Centre. Port Elizabeth Justice Centre: 041-4842724/4873388;.
041-4873335/4844992. Potchefstroom I (Vereeniging) Legal Clinic: 016-4213527;.
016-4214287. This centre is one of the largest legal aid/justice centres in South Africa.