Application by the City of Johannesburg to the Johannesburg High Court for an order of eviction of 400 residents of inner city buildings, claiming unsafe and unhealthy living conditions; Whether the city had made reasonable provision of alternative housing for those it sought to evict; Whether the city’s housing policy complied with section 26 of the Constitution; Due process requirements, including the right of meaningful participation.
Over 400 residents were successfully temporarily relocated without forced eviction. As of April 2009, two aspects of the judgment have been implemented: the unsafe buildings have been made suitable and alternative temporary accommodation has been provided to the buildings occupants. Plans are still being finalized for permanent suitable housing. Human rights advocates in South Africa point to this case as a success story because court encouragement and judicial adoption of settlements has accelerated the process of effective implementation of economic and social rights obligations.
The ruling is a landmark victory for the more than 67,000 low-income residents of Johannesburg facing eviction threats due to the City’s Inner City Regeneration Strategy. The case is one of the first to hold that meaningful participation, or engagement, with rights-holders is constitutionally required. The Constitutional Court’s decision emphasized the need for the State always to engage meaningfully with the inner city poor and respond reasonably to their housing needs by finding adequate alternatives. Advocates in South Africa also praise the Court’s encouragement of dialogue between the parties, and the endorsment of the resulting agreement, as a way of obtaining meaningful implementation with minimal court interventions as well as side-stepping politically sensitive questions regarding the role of the judiciary in social policy. However, such negotiated settlements may result in courts skirting difficult issues that, if decided by the court, could provide beneficial jurisprudence that would positively affect similarly situated persons.
Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) University of Witwatersrand Law Clinic Community Law Centre, University of Western Cape Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)
