Share
Monday, October 5, 2015
Share

Nature of the Case

Challenge by tenants to a planned eviction of poor occupiers from private property. This case involves a range of issues including, the rights of private property owners, and the obligation of the municipality to provide alternate housing for the occupiers.

Enforcement of the Decision and Outcomes

The residents were ordered to vacate the premises by April 15, 2012 and the city was ordered to provide alternate accommodation by April 1.  On April 13, 2012, the City had still not found alternate accommodations for the residents, and therefore the residents brought emergency proceedings before the High Court, arguing that they were facing eviction and probable homelessness in three days.  The High Court postponed the imminent eviction until May 2, 2012. On April 30, 2012 the residents were relocated into temporary accommodations.

A significant development in terms of enforcement was that the occupiers in this case were separated into two groupings: those who could afford rental of R 600.00 or more who went into Council owned rental accommodation, and those who could not. The first group are still accommodated at MBV 2, the social housing project the city relocated them to in April 2012. The second group was accommodated at the Ekuthuleni Shelter in accommodation managed by Metropolitan Evangelical Services (MES). MES sought to enforce draconian rules which included daytime lockouts, night time lockouts and gender segregation which separates families. Through the second grouping, the Blue Moonlight case evolved into the ongoing litigation Dladla & 32 Others v The City of Johannesburg and Another, an application were the residents challenge these rules. (Interview over email with Nomzamo Zondo, Director of Litigation, SERI, July 9th, 2015)

Significance of the Case

This case was fundamental as it provided that the state is liable to provide alternate accommodation to unlawful occupiers who may be rendered homeless due to an eviction from private property. The case also indicated that a private owner’s right to property may be limited by the right to housing of unlawful occupiers.

Groups Involved in the Case

Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI), Lawyers for Human Rights