Summary
The dispute in this case consists of two elements and arose when the first respondent purportedly purchased a property, Angus Mansions, in Johannesburg. In the initial action, the first respondent sought the eviction of approximately 300 people who were residing on the property (the applicants). The opposing action called into question the validity of the sale agreement and, consequently, the eviction order.
In November 2008, the High Court confirmed the validity of the sale agreement and ordered the eviction of the applicants. However, the High Court also granted leave to appeal against its findings to the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). Consequently, the applicants sought to prevent their eviction until the validity of the eviction order had been confirmed in the SCA. One week later, though, the High Court granted the first respondent an interim execution order, which permitted the initial eviction order to be carried out. The effect of this order was that the applicants would be evicted and rendered homeless, despite the fact that leave to appeal to the SCA had been granted in respect of both the sale agreement and the eviction order. The applicants appealed directly to the Constitutional Court, on an urgent basis.
In December 2008, the Constitutional Court ordered the eviction stayed, pending the outcome of the proceedings in the SCA, but gave no reasons for its finding. In March 2009, in a separate judgement, the Constitutional Court issued the reasons for its prior judgement and unanimously held that an eviction from one’s home always raised a constitutional issue. The Constitutional Court considered that the eviction order was made without regard to the Constitution, in particular to section 26 (right to adequate housing, provisions against illegal/arbitrary evictions) or to the provisions of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1998 (PIE). The Constitutional Court declared the High Court’s failure to consider the PIE, ‘inexcusable.The Court agreed that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if the execution order was carried out and noted in this context that the applicants received housing subsidies and fell into a socio-economic class particularly in need of protection. In contrast, the Court found that the potential harm to the first respondent would be minimal and reparable. The Court ruled that it was in the interests of justice to suspend the eviction of the applicants. In addition, the Court stated that it would be fair and just to refer the High Court’s decision to grant leave to execute the eviction order to the SCA to be adjudicated simultaneously with the pending appeal in that Court on the merits of the eviction and the sale agreement.