Constitutional Court decision regarding the constitutional right to housing as juxtaposed with an owner’s right to occupy his own land; appeal from a High Court order allowing eviction to proceed without first requiring that the city provide alternate land to the occupiers.
The City of Tshwane conducted an audit of occupiers but failed to deal with the personal circumstances as stipulated in the Constitutional court order. The City relocated all the families residing on Skurweplaas to a “temporary holding site” on City owned land where they are awaiting permanent housing allocations. (Interview with Nathaniah Jacobs, Lawyers for Human Rights, 2015)
The case supplements and elaborates upon the Court’s prior decision in Blue Moonlight in four material respects. First, the Court deplored the citation of the occupiers in both matters as “invaders”. This description, the Court held was “emotive and judgmental” and undermined the occupiers’ humanity. Second, the Court took into account that, even though the occupation had only begun a relatively short period before eviction proceedings were instituted, the probability that an eviction would lead to homelessness meant that the provision of alternative accommodation or land was still required. Third, the Court considered the owner’s failure to demonstrate that they had any urgent or compelling use for the land unlawfully occupied. This militated against ordering a speedy eviction without the provision of alternatives. Finally, the Court emphasised that High Courts have the power and the duty to order municipalities to take steps to investigate and furnish information relating to their ability to provide alternative accommodation, in the event that it is found that a municipality’s approach is unsatisfactory.
(Updated July 2015)
Lawyers for Human Rights