Share
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Share

Nature of the Case

Constitutional review of failure of State to provide remedy to private landowner and alternative housing for landless under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE).   Whether right to protection from arbitrary deprivation of property and uncompensated expropriation of property breached when State remains passive in face of massive invasion of respondent’s farm.   Right to housing and right to alternative accommodation under article 26 of the Constitution.  Rule of law and right to effective remedy under s 1(c) of Constitution.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The Court declared that the approximately 40,000 residents are entitled to occupy the land until alternative land has been made available.  The Department of Housing began working on developing alternative land. Negotiations were held to agree on the compensation for the land occupation as instructed by the Court. R866 842, 50 was paid to as arrear rental for the period June 2000 to May 2005 and R13 607, 50 was paid for monthly rental

Significance of the Case

This case represents a significant advance in assessing the positive duties on states to ensure that social problems leading to disputes between private actors are resolved in a manner that respects esc rights.  Where there is only one party, the state, which has the key to the solution to problems, then the rule of law imposes obligations on the state to assume that role.  The decision recognizes that courts must address the realities of injustice and poverty rather than dealing with rights such as the right to property in the abstract.

Groups Involved in the Case

Nkuzi Development Association
Community Law Centre, University of the Western Cape
Programme For Land And Agrarian Studies, University of the Western Cape
Agri SA

Ruling