Housing (Right to adequate)

Primary tabs

Caselaw

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.

This case concerns the residents from the informal settlement of Makhaza, part of the Silvertown Project in Cape Town. The City of Cape Town had decided to upgrade the informal settlement under the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP).

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 applicants, occupiers of the Harry Gwala informal settlement, argued for the provision of certain interim basic services in their settlement, pending a decision on whether the settlement was to be upgraded on site or relocated to formal housing (whereupon such services would be provided permanently). They relied primarily on sections 26 and 27 of the Constitution and chapters 12 (emergency housing situations) and 13 (upgrading of informal settlements) of the National Housing Code.

The applicants occupy dilapidated buildings on land owned by the Rustenburg Local Municipality. Since 2004 the municipality had been planning to develop this land. The municipality met with the residents several times to discuss the development plan and to obtain consent from the residents, but no consensus was reached. The residents refused to leave their homes and accept alternative accommodation.

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 claim for damages by a woman with severe disabilities, Mrs. Bernard and her husband, Mr. Bernard, her sole caregiver, alleging that the local Housing Department did not provide them with accommodations suitably adapted for her disability. This failure, it was contended, constituted a violation of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). Damages were sought under the Human Rights Act (HRA), which is the implementing legislation for the ECHR in the UK.

The plaintiffs in this case were members of the Irish Travelling community, traditionally a nomadic people. This particular group of Travellers lived on an unofficial halting or caravan, site in Limerick City for over eight years, in conditions of extreme deprivation and squalor, without running water, toilet facilities, domestic refuse storage and collection, and hard surfaces for their caravans.

El caso fue iniciado en 2008, cuando Inclusive Communities Project (ICP), un grupo sin fines de lucro, demandó al Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA, la autoridad de vivienda y asuntos comunitarios del estado de Texas) por un programa de créditos fiscales federales empleado por los gobiernos estatales y locales para construir viviendas económicas.