Authored By: Phindulo Wanga Radzuma
FACTS
Mrs. Grootboom and several other people were left homeless and had to live in substandard or poor conditions. Many have been waiting for up to seven years after applying for low-cost housing subsidies through the municipality. They decided to live on private property without authorisation in their quest for safety, but they were quickly forced to leave these makeshift homes. The applicants petitioned the High Court to order the state to give them adequate basic housing up until they could find permanent residences and other forms of assistance. They maintained that the South African Constitution’s Sections 26 and 28 provide everyone the right to decent housing as well as children’s specific protection, which includes shelter. The petitioners additionally argued that their claim under Section 26 is strengthened by South Africa’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The High Court found that the state must provide urgent refuge for kids along with their parents in accordance with section 28(c), which highlights the necessity for specific protection for children. However, the Court rejected the idea that the state was required under section 26 of the Constitution to ensure a basic standard of living for everyone, concluding that people without children were not going to be eligible for housing aid. The High Court did not discuss South Africa’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in its ruling on section 26. Through bringing the matter to the South African Constitutional Court, the government contested the High Court’s decision. After arriving, the parties in dispute contended for a broader reading of the Petition, claiming that, in accordance with the High Court’s ruling, all adults should have the right to refuge, not just those who are parents.
LEGAL ISSUE
This case explores the achievement of basic goals, with a special emphasis on the state’s legal responsibilities about housing, a topic that is essential to the development of South Africa’s new legal system. Whether or not the government’s housing strategy successfully satisfies the constitutional requirement to provide access to appropriate housing is at the centre of this constitutional debate. The court took a hard look at how to balance the state’s responsibilities with the rights of individuals, especially when it comes to the reasonableness of the actions the state is taking to uphold the right to housing. This situation brings to light the desperate conditions that many people are still enduring, and the respondents are just a small part of that larger issue. It serves as a stark reminder that if we don’t address the struggles facing these communities, some might feel compelled to act outside the law to escape their circumstances. This case underscores the grim truth that the promises of dignity and equality in our Constitution feel incredibly distant for far too many. It’s unacceptable for anyone to feel driven to occupy land due to unbearable living situations. Taking such matters into one’s own hands isn’t a solution, especially considering the severe lack of land available for housing development, which is a crucial part of tackling our housing crisis.
ARGUMENTS
Section 26 of the Constitution, that declares that everyone is entitled to the right to appropriate housing, serves as the foundation for the respondents’ claim. According to the resources at its disposal, the State is obligated to enact acceptable laws and take other steps to gradually realise this right. Furthermore, the Constitution’s section 28(1)(c) upholds children’s right to refuge. The plaintiffs contended that all respondents, even those who are adults without young children, are entitled to shelter under the State’s minimal requirement under section 26. Furthermore, section 28(1)(c) states unequivocally that children’s unconditional right to shelter proves their eligibility for this minimal duty.
The appellants provided the court with information of the statutory and other housing-related actions they had implemented that strengthened their argument that they followed their constitutional duties. As evidenced by the laws and policies, its housing development policy’s primary objective was to guarantee citizens and permanent residents’ access to secure-tenure permanent houses. The goal of this endeavour was to provide sufficient weather protection while ensuring privacy both inside and outside. Additionally, a land program was created by the relevant metropolitan council to help local councils manage homes for families experiencing a crisis.
JUDGEMENT
The Court carefully examined what the state must do in accordance with Section 26 of the South African Constitution. It underlined that this part must be interpreted considering the remainder of the Constitution as well as the historical and social framework in which it functions. In essence, Section 26 requires the state to provide access to appropriate housing by enacting reasonable laws and taking other acts within the limits of its resources. The Court concluded that the national housing program fails to satisfy these fundamental objectives by ignoring individuals who are in dire need of housing. The Court asserted that, contrary to the claims made by the appellants, the Constitution does not differentiate between housing and shelter. Consequently, it determined that neither Section 26 nor Section 28 of the South African Constitution provides grounds for respondents to demand immediate shelter. As a result, the High Court’s ruling on this matter was not warranted.
The Court considered if the respondents were entitled to broaden the scope of the first application to include refuge for those without children. In resolving this matter, the Court noted that, in accordance with Section 26(2) of the Constitution, the state must design and carry out a thorough and well-coordinated program to guarantee that everyone has access to decent housing while making use of the resources at its disposal. All people, including those without children, are entitled to this privilege. However, because it did not offer the required assistance to those in immediate need of housing, the housing program in the Cape Metropolitan Council region did not satisfy these criteria.
CONCLUSION
Since it created a new framework for comprehending socioeconomic privilege in South Africa, this case is significant. It emphasised the state’s obligation to aggressively fulfil its housing-related constitutional obligations. This implies that to meet their immediate housing demands, towns must plan and budget proactively. The decision underlined that the right to housing encompasses the right to appropriate dwelling as well as the right to be free from eviction. The government was directed by the court to create a more thorough housing strategy that would consider the requirements of people who are in dire circumstances.
