Caselaw Database - All Cases

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.

An order was issued by the High Court order allowing the eviction of 50 families unlawfully occupying private land and requiring the municipality to provide the occupiers with alternate land.  However, under this order, the eviction was permitted to proceed even if the municipality had not yet provided alternate land to the occupiers, in which event the occupiers would become homeless.  The 50 families appealed from this order, arguing that not requiring the city to provide alternate land prior to the eviction was unjust and inequitable under section 4 (6) of th

This case concerns an appeal from a High Court order allowing an eviction of roughly 170 families from private land they had occupied as a result of a settlement’s spilling over onto private land.  The High Court issued an order allowing the eviction of the families from the property.  The families appealed from this order alleging that it was in violation of Section 4(6) of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (“PIE Act”), which was enacted to give effect to Section 26(3) of the Constitution (prohibition against evictions without court orders made aft

The plaintiffs were recipients of the federal program Aid to Families with Dependent Children or the New York State program Home Relief who alleged that New York officials terminated or were about to terminate their benefits under the programs without notice or hearing. When the suit was filed, no rules were in place requiring that recipients be given notice or a hearing before losing their benefits. Before this appeal occurred, the state and city of New York adopted procedures for notice and hearing. The plaintiffs then challenged the adequacy of the new procedures.