Start main page content

 

CALS has a long history of work in socio-economic rights and has been part of several groundbreaking cases concerning housing and evictions. Among them are 'Olivia Road' where the Constitutional Court ruled that municipalities must engage meaningfully before evicting people and rendering them homeless; and 'Blue Moonlight' where the Court extended the obligation of municipalities to provide alternative accommodation where people are evicted by private landowners. 

Though these precedent-setting cases have impacted on South Africa's jurisprudence, implementation of the law remains a challenge. Lack of access to adequate housing and unlawful evictions are still a major problem in urban Johannesburg and in surrounding informal settlements. The Basic Services Programme continues to assist client communities facing anything from eviction in the inner city to lack of service delivery, and even flood damage and the need for informal settlement upgrades. Read more about some of our recent cases below. 

Case study: 'Dladla'

Dladla, Ellen Nomsa and Others v City of Johannesburg and Another

'Dladla' represents a landmark case for housing and evictions. It involved a challenge brought by the residents of Ekuthuleni Shelter, represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute (SERI), against the City of Johannesburg and Metropolitan Evangelical Services, with CALS entering as amicus curiae. The application challenged the constitutionality of rules that were imposed in shelter accommodation provided to people who had been evicted.

Ekuthuleni Shelter has been used as alternative accommodation since 2012 after a Constitutional Court ruling in a CALS case known as 'Blue Moonlight'. The City of Johannesburg was ordered to provide temporary housing for people who were left homeless after they were evicted from their homes in Saratoga Avenue. They were placed in Ekuthuleni Shelter, managed by Metropolitan Evangelical Services, which implemented a 'managed care model'. The most troubling aspects of this model include rules for daytime lockouts (where residents are forced to leave their accommodation at 8:00 and only return at 17:30), gender segregation (forcing families to separate) and evictions from residences without court orders.

The residents brought the matter to court, arguing that these rules infringe on the residents’ rights to dignity, privacy, and freedom and security of the person. The case was heard on 12 August 2014. CALS, represented by the Legal Resources Centre, entered the matter as amicus curiae. We were able to assist the court with international law around issues of temporary emergency accommodation. Our submissions also examined the rules from a gendered perspective, arguing that they are unconstitutional because they have a disproportionate impact on women and therefore infringe on their right to equality.

On 22 August 2014, Judge Wepener ruled in our favour. He found that the City’s policy on temporary accommodation was unconstitutional and interdicted the City from implementing the shelter rules. He noted that the “splitting up of families at the shelter cuts to the very heart of the right to dignity and the right to family life” (at paragraph 38) and that the “lock-out also results in residents being exposed to dangers inherent in street life and... clearly infringes on their right to freedom, security and dignity” (at paragraph 42).

The matter was subsequently taken on appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal, where it was upheld. The residents have further appealed to the Constitutional Court and the matter will be heard in February 2017. CALS continues to act as amicus curiae in the hopes of assisting the court with arguments around gender-specific norms for adequate housing. 

Court Papers

Case study: 'Kliptown'

Thelma Mbatha and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others

CALS represents around 250 households residing on a flood line in the Freedom Charter Square Informal Settlement in Kliptown, Soweto. In October 2014, heavy rains caused severe flooding in the area which destroyed our clients’ houses and damaged their property, including food, clothing and personal belongings.

CALS had been liaising with the City of Johannesburg about the danger of flooding in the informal settlement since March 2014, when heavy rain had also threatened to displace the community. When we approached the City to find a solution to the current emergency, we were told the situation was “not life-threatening”. At the time, the flood water was up to three metres deep in places.

On 31 October 2014, CALS took the matter to court, filing an urgent application on behalf of those living on the flood line. The application called for the City of Johannesburg to relocate the community urgently to temporary emergency accommodation. Thelma Mbatha and Others v City of Johannesburg and Others was heard on the 5th of November 2014.

The Court took some time to deliberate over the matter. On 5 December 2014, Judge Moshidi granted the urgent application with costs, saying the situation is “ an ongoing, imminent, life-threatening one... In my view, it would be a dereliction of duty for the courts to shirk the duty of rescuing persons like the affected residents and applicants in the circumstances” (at paragraph 12). Judge Moshidi not only ordered the City of Johannesburg to relocate those named in the application, but to investigate if others not cited in the application were affected by the flooding. The judgment further ordered the City to relocate the residents within 7 court days.

The relocation successfully took place in December 2014 and our clients were pleased with their placements. The case represents a victory for those living in poverty in Johannesburg’s informal settlements and beyond.

Court Papers

Case study: 'Main Street'

Mtshali Thokozani and the Occupiers of 238 Main Street v Tayengwa Masawi and Others

Since 8 January 2013, CALS has represented residents evicted from 238 Main Street in central Johannesburg. The former occupants of the building include several elderly women, young infants and people suffering serious medical conditions. Many of the residents had been living in the building and paying rent there for over a decade.

CALS applied for a rescission to have their eviction order overturned, since clients were left homeless and forced to live on the street under a bridge near the property. When the case was argued later that month, however, the presiding Judge did not consider this situation urgent and the matter was postponed.

In February 2013, the matter was heard by Judge Molahlehi, who dismissed the application for rescission of the court order which granted our clients’ eviction in 2012. He further ordered the City of Johannesburg to provide alternative accommodation to 33 of the remaining former occupants at a shelter.

CALS has applied for leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal and was instead granted an appeal to a full bench of the High Court. The matter was heard on 18 March 2015 and judgment was reserved. 

Court papers

Share