-
Please contact us for more information
Telephone: +27 21 959 2950/2951
Fax +27 21 959 2411
More information...
Many of our publications are in PDF format. If you do not have a PDF viewer installed on your computer you can download the latest version of Adobe Reader by clicking here. 
|
Residents of Joe Slovo – right to adequate housing and evictions
This case concerns the eviction of residents of Joe Slovo, one of Cape Town’s biggest informal settlements, to make way for formal housing as part of a government project.
|
The Constitutional Court case
Residents of Joe Slovo Community Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others Case No CCT 22/08
Judgment delivered on 10 June 2009
The judgment underscored the necessity of meaningful engagement and the provision of alternative accommodation. The Court held that no person may be moved unless alternative accommodation is provided to him or her. The Court also required individual engagement with households prior to their move. The Court directed that the state engage meaningfully with the residents on the timetable for the move and on any other matter on which they agree to move. The Court also directed the state to provide 70% of the low cost housing to be built at Joe Slovo to former or current residents of Joe Slovo who have applied for and qualify for housing. The Court rejected the arguments of the Joe Slovo residents that the state was not entitled to seek their eviction in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE). It held that by the time the eviction proceedings were launched, the applicants were “unlawful occupiers” within the meaning of PIE, either because they did not have consent to occupy the settlement in the first place, or because that consent was subsequently revoked.
Access the Constitutional Court judgment
Access our Heads of Argument
Download some pictures at the Constitutional Court hearing
|
|
|
The High Court case
Thubelisha Homes and Others v Various Occupants and Others Case No: 13189/07.
The judgment delivered on 10 March 2008. The Court did not see the case as a mass eviction but a strategic relocation that will not result in homelessness as alternative accommodation has been provided by the state. The Court also interdicted the occupiers from, once they have vacated or been evicted, from returning to Joe Slovo for the purposes of erecting or taking up residence in informal dwellings. The Court based its finding on the fact that the residents were occupying the land unlawfully and without consent of the owner, alternative accommodation has been provided and transport, safety, educational and pension needs have been catered for.
|
|
|
|
Children's Rights
Prison Reform
Gender
Local Government
Socio Economic Rights
Housing Project
Privatisation
|