Motswagae and Others v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Another (CCT 42/12) [2013] ZACC 1; 2013 (3) BCLR 271 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 613 (CC) (7 February 2013)

Motswagae and Others v Rustenburg Local Municipality and Another (CCT 42/12) [2013] ZACC 1; 2013 (3) BCLR 271 (CC); 2013 (2) SA 613 (CC) (7 February 2013)

Section 26(3) of the Constitution protects the peaceful and undisturbed occupation of a home and prohibits any interference, including construction work that disturbs occupation, unless authorised by a court order. The municipality's actions in authorising and causing intrusive construction work without a court order constituted a form of eviction and were unlawful. The offer of alternative accommodation confirmed that the municipality recognised the disturbance. The municipality's reliance on a servitudinal right and its constitutional obligations did not justify bypassing the requirement for a court order. The applicants had a clear right to an interdict, were suffering irreparable...

Citation
[2013] ZACC 1
Parties
Applicant: Pontsho Doreen Motswagae; Applicant: Fourteen Others; Respondent: Rustenburg Local Municipality; Respondent: Promptique TR 9 CC; Amicus Curiae: Lawyers for Human Rights
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 February 2013
Case Number
CCT 42/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interdict and Counter Application; Leave to Appeal Granted
Outcome
Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; interdict granted against respondents; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Yacoob, Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Froneman, Jafta, Khampepe, Nkabinde, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Zondo
Legal Topics
Section 26 Right to Housing, Eviction Without Court Order, Peaceful Occupation, Municipal Powers, Interdict, Rule of Law
Constitutional Law Land and Property Civil Procedure Section 26 Right to Housing Eviction Without Court Order Peaceful Occupation Municipal Powers Interdict +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pontsho Doreen Motswagae

Applicant

Fourteen Others

Applicant

Rustenburg Local Municipality

Respondent

Promptique TR 9 CC

Respondent

Lawyers for Human Rights

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Interdict and Counter Application; Leave to Appeal Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 26(3) of the Constitution protect undisturbed occupation of a home absent a court order?
  2. 2 Did the municipality act lawfully in authorising construction work that interfered with the applicants' occupation without a court order?
  3. 3 Can the municipality's conduct be regarded as reasonable and constitutionally compliant without a court order ejecting the applicants?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 26(3) of the Constitution protects the peaceful and undisturbed occupation of a home and prohibits any interference, including construction work that disturbs occupation, unless authorised by a court order. The municipality's actions in authorising and causing intrusive construction work without a court order constituted a form of eviction and were unlawful. The offer of alternative accommodation confirmed that the municipality recognised the disturbance. The municipality's reliance on a servitudinal right and its constitutional obligations did not justify bypassing the requirement for a court order. The applicants had a clear right to an interdict, were suffering irreparable...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; High Court order set aside; interdict granted against respondents; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.