Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom
| Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom | |
|---|---|
 |
|
| Court | Constitutional Court of South Africa |
| Full case name | Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others |
| Decided | 4 October 2000 |
| Citation(s) | [2000] ZACC 19, 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC), 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC) |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Cape Provincial Division |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Chaskalson P, Langa DP, Goldstone, Kriegler, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, O'Regan, Sachs & Yacoob JJ, Cameron AJ |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Yacoob |
Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.
The respondents had been evicted from their informal homes situated on private land earmarked for formal low-cost housing. They applied to a High Court for an order requiring the government to provide them with adequate basic shelter or housing until they obtained permanent accommodation. The High Court held
The appellants appealed against this decision.
The respondents based their claim on two constitutional provisions:
It was contended that the minimum obligation incurred by the State in terms of section 26 entitled all the respondents, including those adult respondents without children, to shelter, and that the children's unqualified right to shelter included in section 28(1)(c) placed the right of children to that minimum obligation beyond doubt.
In support of their contention that they had complied with the obligation imposed on them by the Constitution, the appellants placed evidence before the court of the legislative and other measures they had adopted concerning housing. The central thrust of the housing development policy evidenced by the legislation and other measures was to provide citizens and permanent residents with access to permanent residential structures with secure tenure, ensuring internal and external privacy, and to provide adequate protection against the elements. In addition, the relevant metropolitan council had formulated a land program specifically to assist the metropolitan local councils to manage the settlement of families in crisis. The program recognised:
The primary objective of the program was the release of land for these families in crisis, with services to be upgraded progressively. At the time relevant to the matter, however, the program had not been effected. Counsel for the appellants submitted that section 26 did not require the provision of relief to families in crisis and that in fact, provision for people in desperate need would detract significantly from any integrated housing development.
The Constitutional Court held that the issue of whether socio-economic rights are justiciable at all in South Africa is put beyond question by the text of the Constitution as construed in the judgment Ex parte Chairperson of the Constitutional Assembly: In re Certification of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. The question of how socio-economic rights were to be enforced, however, was a difficult issue which had to be carefully explored on a case-by-case basis, considering the terms and context of the relevant constitutional provision and its application to the circumstances of the case.
...
Wikipedia