South Africa

Primary tabs

ESCR-Net member, the Socio-Economic Rights Institute, published a research report aiming to provide a comprehensive analysis of the jurisprudence on...

ESCR-Net Member, the Legal Resource Center, is representing the Center for Child Law and the school governing bodies of four farm schools in the Eastern Cape, South...

ESCR-Net member Section 27, along with other civil society organizations around the world, has endorsed the ...

ESCR-Net member Peoples for Health Movement, in parallel with 270 civil society organizations, has released an urgent call to the UN to revoke weak and harmful indicator 3.8.2....

In this case, a landlord applied for the High Court to set aside a decision by the Gauteng Rental Housing Tribunal (“Tribunal”). Eighty rental tenants had brought a complaint to the Tribunal based on their landlord’s charge of about R385 per month per tenant for electricity in addition to the costs they paid for their individual consumption. The tenants discovered that the utility service provider, City Power, charged the landlord about R337,50 per month for the whole building. This meant that their landlord was generating a significant profit from the service charge.

Country: 
South Africa
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Strategic Litigation
OP-ICESCR

This case concerns the conflict between the constitutional right to adequate housing and an owner’s right to develop private property.  Eighty-six poor individuals were unlawfully occupying private unused industrial facilities as living quarters.  The owner of the property (Blue Moonlight) sued to evict the occupiers in order to develop the property, which would almost certainly render them homeless.  The occupiers argued that the city had an obligation to provide them with temporary housing under the South African Constitution and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from, and Unlawful Occup

Country: 
South Africa
Working Group(s) / Area(s) of Work: 
Strategic Litigation

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