In this case, the Court rescinded the eviction order of 184 land occupiers on the grounds that the lower court failed to both consider all relevant circumstances and make a finding that the eviction be just and equitable. The Court held that such procedures are required for granting of an eviction order, even when there is purported consent to the eviction.
After remand, according to the litigants Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South African (SERI):
On 16 April 2018, the High Court granted the eviction of the residents by 31 July 2019 on condition that the residents are provided with alternative accommodation by the City at least one month before the eviction (30 June 2019). Furthermore, the court ordered the City to provide the residents, in writing, the nature and location of the alternative accommodation that will be provided by 28 February 2019.
The judgment is statement of principles of housing law in South Africa that have been being developed by courts – and particularly the Constitutional Court – for years. For example, it affirms that for an eviction to be just and equitable a judge must consider whether homelessness may result and that this is the responsibility of the judge whether or not the residents appear to have consented (factually or legally) to their own eviction. The court also emphasizes clearly the proactive duty on judges to investigate these and other circumstances of clients, including whether they have legal representation and how well they may understand their rights. Finally the Court emphasizes a crucial point about the balancing of occupiers rights with property owners rights, reaffirming that the mere fact that the occupiers on private property unlawfully does not eliminate their constitutional and statutory rights, which are there precisely to defend such occupiers.
For their contributions, special thanks to ESCR-Net member: the Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy (PHRGE) at Northeastern University.