South Africa

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

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

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.