CASE STUDY: THE GROOTBOOM DECISION

The Grootboom decision of the South African Constitutional Court involved about 900 people living in inadequate housing in Oostenberg in South Africa. Most had applied for low-cost housing, but were becoming increasingly frustrated after many years of waiting with no response from authorities. Desperate, they decided to occupy a vacant piece of private property across the road from the site that had been earmarked for low-cost housing. The owner of the property applied for and received a court magistrate’s order to evict the squatters and their homes were destroyed. Now homeless, the community petitioned the High Court for an order for temporary shelter until they could be permanently accommodated under a provincial housing plan. The government o!ered access to a piece of land and some building materials, as well as access to basic services while they waited for housing to become available. Subsequently, however, the government failed to honour its promise. The community then took their case to the High Court, basing their arguments on Section 26 of the South African Constitution, which states that: Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing; and the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realization of this right. The court ruled [...] “that the community’s right to have access to adequate housing had indeed been violated... [and] that a legislative or policy framework aimed at the progressive realization of social rights...and that it must be comprehensive, coherent, balanced and %exible...Section 26 imposed a negative duty on states not to prevent or impair the access to housing, as well as a positive obligation to create an enabling environment for the ful"lment of this right. The state’s housing plan must respond to the needs of crisis situations, and may not exclude any signi"cant sector of society, especially vulnerable populations. The housing plan in this case did not meet these standards, and therefore the government had a duty to rectify the situation.”