South Africa

Primary tabs

Western Cape Forum for Intellectual Disability v. Government of the Republic of South Africa & Government of the Province of Western Cape, Case no: 18678/2007

The applicant is a body that represents over 150 member organizations that provide care for children living in the Western Cape who have severe and profound intellectual disabilities. In the Western Cape, the only available education for children who are severely and profoundly intellectually disabled occurs at "Special Care Centers" operated by non-governmental organizations. There are an insufficient number of such Special Care Centers and the children who are not able to obtain care at these centers receive no care at all.

Abahlali BaseMjondolo Movement SA and others v. Premier of the Province of Kwazulu, and others, 2010 (2) BCLR 99 (CC)

This case was brought as an abstract review[1] by the Abahlali BaseMjondolo Movement (Abahlali), a voluntary association which acts in the interests of several thousand people living in informal dwellings in South Africa. Abahlali argued that section 16 of the KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergence of Slums Act ("the Slums Act"), which authorized provincial government officials to issue a notice directing that eviction proceedings be instituted by owners and local municipalities against informal settlements, was unconstitutional.

Joseph v. the City of Johannesburg 2010 (4) SA 55 (CC)

The South African Constitutional Court was asked to decide whether tenants of a block of flats were entitled to notice before the municipal electricity utility, City Power, disconnected their supply. The tenants paid for their electricity to the owner of the property, and despite their regular payment, the owner allowed substantial arrears to run up on the account, and City Power disconnected the property, giving the owner, but not the tenants, notice.

Jaftha v. Schoeman; Van Rooyen v. Stoltz 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC)

The case was brought by two women who had borrowed minimal sums of money (about 27 and 35 US dollars respectively), had been charged significant interest and fell behind on their payments. This led to the sale and execution of their houses. The applicants argued that legislation permitting the sale in execution of people's homes due to non-payment of trifling debts removed their security of tenure and violated their right to access to adequate housing recognized in section 26 of the Constitution. The law in question was sections 66(1)(a) and 67 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 32 of 1944.

Residents of the Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v. Thubelisha Homes and others 2010 (3) SA 454 (CC)

Approximately 20,000 occupiers of the Joe Slovo informal settlement in Cape Town appealed to the Constitutional Court to set aside an order for their eviction granted by the High Court. The eviction had been sought by the National and Provincial Ministers of Housing and a housing company contracted to implement a development of formal housing for low-income families at the site of the informal settlement. While the housing company tendered that they would provide temporary accommodation for the occupiers in Delft, 15 kilometres away, no permanent housing was guaranteed.

Lindiwe Mazibuko & Others v City of Johannesburg & Others, Case CCT 39/09, [2009] ZACC 28

Five residents of Phiri in Soweto brought a case against the City of Johannesburg, Johannesburg Water (a company wholly owned by the City) and the national Minister for Water Affairs and Forestry. There were two key questions at issue.

October 19, 2009: Press Release- South African and International Human Rights Groups Granted Permission to Intervene in Foreign Mining Companies' Complaint Against South African Government

International Arbitration Tribunal agrees to accept human rights arguments and orders disclosure of key documents

Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v. City of Johannesburg and others, CCT 24/07

The City of Johannesburg sought to evict men, women and children from two buildings in Berea, in the inner city. This was part of an overall clearance policy under the Johannesburg Inner City Regeneration Strategy, in which evictions have been carried out in the middle of the night and without notice, under Apartheid-era laws and regulations. The city alleged that the living conditions are unhygienic and constitute a fire hazard, but had refused to offer the occupiers alternative accommodation.