Summary
Approximately 20,000 occupiers of the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Cape Town appealed to the Constitutional Court to set aside an order for their eviction granted by the High Court. The eviction had been sought by the National and Provincial Ministers of Housing and a housing company contracted to implement a development of formal housing for low-income families at the site of the informal settlement. While the housing company tendered that they would provide temporary accommodation for the occupiers in Delft, 15 kilometres away, no permanent housing was guaranteed.
The Court dealt with the application using the reasonableness standard. The question as to whether the eviction was just and equitable was decided by analyzing whether it constituted a reasonable measure to give effect to the right to housing. The Court decided the eviction was reasonable, even in the absence of meaningful engagement with the community, upon the condition that adequate alternative accommodation was provided and that the occupiers’ expectation that 70% of the houses in the new development would be allocated to them.
The Court found the applicants were “unlawful occupiers” under domestic legislation, and that the respondents had acted reasonably in seeking to promote the right of access to adequate housing, however, the order granted by the Constitutional Court differed from that of the High Court. The Constitutional Court stipulated that, no person may be moved unless alternative accommodation in accordance with requirements set out by the Court is provided, including: (1) individual engagement with households before their move, including on the timetable for the move and other issues, including the provision of assistance to move their possessions; (2) adequate schools and clinics were provided on the relocation site; and (3) the accommodation had to be ensured at the point of eviction. The parties were directed to report to the Court on the implementation of the order.
Keywords: Residents of the Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v. Thubelisha Homes and others 2010 (3) SA 454, Adequate, Standard, Living, Right