South Africa Case Law

Nokotyana and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (CCT 31/09)

Nokotyana and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (CCT 31/09) [2009] ZACC 33; 2010 (4) BCLR 312 (CC) (19 November 2009)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 31/09

Judges

Van der Westhuizen, Moseneke, Cameron, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Nkabinde, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya

The Constitutional Court dismissed an appeal over sanitation and lighting in an informal settlement, but ordered Gauteng to decide the upgrade application within 14 months.

• Right Of Access To Adequate Housing
• Progressive Realisation Of Socio Economic Rights
• Municipal Obligations
• Informal Settlement Upgrading
• Minimum Core Obligation
• Judicial Review Of Administrative Action

Thubelisha Homes and Others v Various Occupants and Others (13189/07)

Thubelisha Homes and Others v Various Occupants and Others (13189/07) [2008] ZAWCHC 14 (10 March 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

13189/07

Judge

Hlophe JP

The court found that the respondents are unlawful occupiers under PIE, as they lacked consent from the City or Thubelisha Homes to occupy Joe Slovo. The applicants, including the National Minister of Housing, had locus standi to bring the application. The eviction and relocation were held to be just and equitable, given the provision of alternative accommodation in TRAs at Delft, which was found to be superior to the current informal dwellings. The court rejected the respondents' claim of legitimate expectation, holding that unlawful occupation cannot give rise to enforceable expectations and…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Right Of Access To Adequate Housing
• Legitimate Expectation
• Locus Standi
• Alternative Accommodation
• Judicial Review

City of Johannesburg v Rand Properties (Pty) Ltd (253/06)

City of Johannesburg v Rand Properties (Pty) Ltd (253/06) [2007] ZASCA 25; [2007] 2 All SA 459 (SCA) ; 2007 (6) SA 417 (SCA); 2007 (6) BCLR 643 (SCA) (26 March 2007)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

253/06

Judges

Harms, Scott, Farlam, Nugent, Cloete

The SCA held the City could order occupiers from unsafe buildings without first providing alternative housing, but must arrange temporary shelter for those left homeless.

• Right Of Access To Adequate Housing
• Eviction Proceedings
• National Building Regulations Act
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Prevention Of Illegal Eviction Act
• Municipal Obligations

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others (CCT74/03)

Jaftha v Schoeman and Others, Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others (CCT74/03) [2004] ZACC 25; 2005 (2) SA 140 (CC); 2005 (1) BCLR 78 (CC) (8 October 2004)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT74/03

Judges

Mokgoro, Chaskalson, Langa, Moseneke, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

Section 66(1)(a) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act is unconstitutional to the extent that it permits execution against the homes of indigent debtors without judicial oversight, thereby unjustifiably limiting their right of access to adequate housing under section 26(1) of the Constitution. The legislative scheme is overbroad and fails to protect vulnerable debtors who may lack knowledge or resources to invoke available remedies. Judicial oversight is required to ensure that execution is only ordered after consideration of all relevant circumstances, balancing the interests of creditors and debto…

Source excerpt

• Right Of Access To Adequate Housing
• Judicial Oversight Of Execution
• Limitation Of Rights
• Magistrates Courts Act
• Remedies For Unconstitutional Law