Authored By: Lithalethu Mehlwana
University of Fort Hare
CASE SUMMARY
- Case full Citation: Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom and others [2000] ZACC 19 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC).
- Court Name and Bench:
Court Name: Constitutional Court of South Africa
Name of judge / Bench: Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Godstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O’Regan, Sachs & Yacoobs, Cameron AJ.
- Date of Judgement: 04 October 2000
- Parties Involved:
4.1 Applicant:
The Applicants were residents of the Wallacedene informal settlement located in Western Cape. They were removed from a private land they had inhabited, which left them all stuck living on a sports field in terrible conditions. Represented by Grootboom, they contended that the state had not supplied sufficient housing or, at the very least, temporary assistance; they submitted their complaint to the high court, which was contested by the defendant and ultimately adjudicated in the Constitutional Court of South Africa
4.2 Respondent:
The defendant in this case was the State which is the Government of the Republic of South Africa.
- Facts of the Case:
The Applicants were removed from their makeshift residences located on private property designated for official low-cost housing. They sought a High Court order mandating the government to ensure they received sufficient basic shelter or housing until securing permanent accommodation. The High Court determined that under sections 26 and 28 of the Constitution, the State was required to offer basic shelter to children and their parents upon request if the parents could not provide shelter; this duty existed independently of, and in addition to, the requirement to implement reasonable legislative and other measures as per the Constitution, and the State was compelled to supply this basic shelter regardless of resource availability. TheHigh Court consequently directed the Respondents to offer shelter to those respondents who were minors, along with their parents.
The respondents contested this ruling.
- Issues Raised:
The issue that were raised was, Whether section 26 of the Constitution (the right to access to adequate housing) imposes a direct obligation on the state to provide housing to all who lack it, or whether the obligation is qualified by progressive realization within available resources. The State had an obligation to provide adequate Housing.
Whether section 28(1)(c) of the Constitution which grants children the right to shelter, placed an immediate duty on the state to provide shelter to children (and indirectly to their parents)
- Arguments of the Parties:
The state appealed the case to the constitutional court because it was unhappy with the High Court’s ruling. The respondent in the constitutional court based their argument on two clauses in the constitution:
- Everyone has the right to adequate housing, according to Section 26 of the Constitution, which requires the State to take reasonable legislative and other actions to guarantee the progressive realization of this right within the limits of its resources.
- The Constitution’s Section 28(1)(c) guarantees children the right to shelter.
It was argued that the children’s unqualified right to shelter, as stated in section 28(1)(c), put the children’s right to that minimum obligation beyond question, and that the State’s minimum obligation under section 26 entitled all respondents, including adult respondents without children, to shelter. The appellants presented the court with documentation of the legislative and other housing-related actions they had taken to bolster their argument that they had fulfilled their constitutionally mandated obligations. The primary goal of the housing development policy, as demonstrated by the laws and other actions, was to give citizens and long-term residents access to secure, long-term residential buildings that would guarantee their privacy both inside and outside and offer sufficient weather protection. Furthermore, a land program created especially to support the metropolitan area was created by the relevant metropolitan council.
- Judgement / Final decision:
The Constitutional Court recognized that the state could not be expected to provide housing for everyone in need because of the enormous backlog in housing provision in South Africa, which is nearly impossible to clear. According to the court, the state must only provide for its citizens and permanent residents to the extent that it is able because all socioeconomic rights are subject to the idea of progressive realisation. Additionally, the state must be able to demonstrate that it was doing everything within its power through both its policies and its deliverables.
The court decided that the High Court order should never have been issued in the first place because section 26 does not grant the respondents the right to request shelter or housing right away. Therefore, it was decided that even though the state must work to ensure that everyone has access to housing, it only needs to demonstrate that it made every effort to provide housing.
- Legal Reasoning / Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi was that the state’s housing program was unconstitutional because it failed to make reasonable provisions for those in desperate need of shelter. Reasonableness under section 26(2) requires that a housing policy must address both long-term development and the immediate, short-term needs of the most vulnerable. Therefore, the legal principles from this case is that socio-economic rights under the constitution imposes a duty on the state to adopt reasonable measures that cater not only for the progressive realization but also for urgent needs of the most vulnerable.
- Conclusion / Observation
The grootboom judgement highlighted that socio-economic rights in the South African Constitution are justiciable and enforceable, but their enforcement is subject to reasonableness standard. The court avoided creating unrealistic immediate entitlements, yet demanded that government programs must include emergency relief for the most vulnerable. This case struck a balance between judicial oversight and respect for executive and respect for executive policy making.
