Solapas principales


Due to the deterioration of the buildings within Schubart Park, a state-subsidized residential complex, the City stopped the water and electricity supply while 700 families were living there. Residents protested by lighting fires and throwing objects from buildings. The police removed these residents and would not allow them or any other residents from this complex to return. Negotiations occurred between the residents and the City to find temporary accommodations for the displaced residents, but no agreement was reached.

A mentally disabled woman with three children sought to set aside an eviction order from the family home obtained by her former husband. In making the eviction order, the magistrate found that the man was the registered owner of the property and the former wife and the children occupied the home after he had withdrawn his consent. The magistrate acknowledged the woman’s disability, but found that the former wife had suitable alternative accommodation available because she could move back in with her relatives (which she denied).

This case concerns a municipality’s efforts to remove residents from land it had deemed to be a “local state of disaster” pursuant to the Disaster Management Act (“DMA”), which was intended to provide municipalities with flexibility in urgently responding to disaster-stricken areas when such action is necessary for the preservation of life.  Upon learning of their impending removal, the residents challenged the eviction, arguing that the removal was unlawful under the Constitution’s guarantees of the right to housing and certain statutory provisions.  The reside

This 2014 decision was handed down after three rounds of litigation. In 2012 applicants sought a court order directing the delivery of school furniture to three rural schools in dire need of furniture; a declaration that the State had violated children’s right to education by failing to provide “adequate, age and grade appropriate furniture” at Eastern Cape schools; and an order that the state complete a comprehensive audit of school furniture needs in the province.

Esta sentencia del año 2014 fue dictada después de tres rondas de litigación.

Apelación del rechazo por parte del Alto Tribunal de South Gauteng de una solicitud de medida cautelar presentada por las organizaciones South African Informal Traders Forum y South African National Traders Retail Association. Los peticionantes invocaron su derecho a acceder a la justicia reconocido en el artículo 34 de la constitución de Sudáfrica para fundamentar la apelación.

Appeal of South Gauteng High Court’s dismissal of application for interim relief brought by South African Informal Traders Forum and South African National Traders Retail Association. Appellants cited their right to access to courts under Section 34 of the South African constitution as a basis of their appeal.

Este caso se refiere a los intentos de desalojo de los inquilinos de ciertos departamentos residenciales en Johannesburgo. Estos inquilinos habían vivido en estos departamentos bajo varios contratos, algunos de aquellos por cerca de veinte años. Estos contratos de alquiler contenían una provision permitiendo a ambas partes terminar el alquiler con cierto aviso previo. Tres años antes del intento de desalojo, el propietario informó a los inquilinos que debían pagar el doble o triple del precio previo o abandonar a sus casas.

This case concerns the attempted eviction of tenants of certain residential flats in Johannesburg.  These tenants had been living in these flats subject to various leases, some for nearly twenty years.  The leases contained a provision allowing either party to terminate the lease with certain notice.  Three years before the attempted evictions the landlord told the tenants to pay double or triple their rent or leave their homes. When the tenants refused, the landlord terminated their leases.