A.



CONTRIBUTION TO THE MANDATE OF THE LWANDLE MINISTERIAL ENQUIRYA cursory note on the law and obligations surrounding the eviction of unlawful occupiers in South AfricaISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER AMEERMIAAcknowledgments We would like to acknowledge the Office of the Chairperson of the South African Human Rights Commission; the Office of the Deputy Chairperson; the Office of the Chief Executive Officer; the Office of the COO and the entire staff of the Commission for the Support they have expended.Table of Contents TOC \o "1-3" \h \z \u HYPERLINK \l "_Toc397954581" Table of Contents PAGEREF _Toc397954581 \h 3A. The mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission PAGEREF _Toc397954582 \h 4B. Background to the matter PAGEREF _Toc397954583 \h 4C. Introduction PAGEREF _Toc397954584 \h 5D. The Constitutional and legislative framework PAGEREF _Toc397954585 \h 51. Section 26 PAGEREF _Toc397954586 \h 52. Evictions under PIE PAGEREF _Toc397954587 \h 6E. The International law standards on evictions PAGEREF _Toc397954588 \h 6F. The Jurisprudence of the courts PAGEREF _Toc397954589 \h 81. Grootboom PAGEREF _Toc397954590 \h 82. P E Municipality PAGEREF _Toc397954591 \h 83. Olivia Road PAGEREF _Toc397954592 \h 95. Joe Slovo PAGEREF _Toc397954593 \h 96. Abahlali PAGEREF _Toc397954594 \h 107. Blue Moonlight PAGEREF _Toc397954595 \h 10A.The crystallised principles PAGEREF _Toc397954596 \h 111. Alternative Accommodation PAGEREF _Toc397954597 \h 112. Consideration of all relevant circumstances PAGEREF _Toc397954598 \h 123. The law of joinder PAGEREF _Toc397954599 \h 124. Onus of Proof PAGEREF _Toc397954600 \h 135. Meaningful engagement PAGEREF _Toc397954601 \h 136. Personal accountability of municipal officials PAGEREF _Toc397954602 \h 15B. Conclusion and Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc397954603 \h 151. General Remarks PAGEREF _Toc397954604 \h 152. Recommendations PAGEREF _Toc397954605 \h 16Bibliography PAGEREF _Toc397954606 \h 19Court judgments PAGEREF _Toc397954607 \h 19Research reports and journals PAGEREF _Toc397954608 \h 20Legislation PAGEREF _Toc397954609 \h 20International Instruments PAGEREF _Toc397954610 \h 21PART 1A. The mandate of the South African Human Rights CommissionThe South African Human Rights Commission (Commission) is an institution established in terms of Section 181 of the Constitution which is specifically mandated to:Promote respect for human rights;Promote the protection development and attainment of human rights; andMonitor and assess the observance of human rights in South Africa.Section 184(2) (c) and (d) of the Constitution empowers the Commission to investigate, monitor and report on the observance of human rights in the country. Section 182(2) (c) and (d) affords the Commission authority to carry out research and to educate on human rights related matters. The Human Rights Commission Act, 54 of 1994 (Human Rights Commission Act) further supplements the powers of the Commission.It needs to be emphasized that the SAHRC does not represent any particular party at an individual level, nor does it represent any committees representing such parties or other stakeholders. It engages in this process on the basis of its constitutional mandate to protect and promote a culture of human rights, as set out in the Constitution and the Human Rights Commission Act.This paper will be divided into two parts. The first part will l highlight the law pertaining to evictions and will also note the international best practices in evicting unlawful occupiers. Thereafter, the paper will note the jurisprudential pronouncements of the courts in South Africa. The second part will delineate the crystallised principles adumbrated by the courts regarding evictions of unlawful occupiers. The paper will conclude with recommendations to the relevant stakeholders involved during the eviction process, these are the municipalities, sheriffs and members of the South African Police Services.B. Background to the matterIn June 2014, hundreds of people were left homeless at Nomzamo settlement in Strand after the South African National Road Agency Limited (SANRAL) initiated the demolition and destruction of their homes from land owned by SANRAL. During an inquiry commissioned by the Human Settlement’s Minister it was heard that SANRAL had obtained a court interdict in January 2014 to prevent land invasions.The Commission commends the Ministry of Human Settlements for establishing a Ministerial Enquiry on 4 June 2014 which seeks among other things to investigate the circumstances under which the evictions occurred, and make necessary recommendations for policy and legislative review and relating to improvement in effecting mass evictions.C. IntroductionThe preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (Constitution), notes that we have pledged “to improve the quality of lives of all citizens”. Furthermore, some of the founding values underpinning the Constitution are human dignity and the advancement of human rights. It is now trite that human rights are inalienable, indivisible, intertwined and interlinked. That is, rights in the Bill of Rights are interrelated and mutually supporting. This report seeks to investigate the law regarding the right to access to adequate housing. Specifically, the focus is on evictions of unlawful occupiers. The report notes the jurisprudential pronouncements of the courts, and the crystallised requirements to be followed when unlawful occupiers are being evicted. This report comes at the backdrop of the “Lwandle evictions”.D. The Constitutional and legislative framework1. Section 26Section 26 of the Constitution is divided into three sub-sections. First, section 26(1) provides that “everyone” has a right to have access to adequate housing. Secondly, section 26(2) is couched in positive terms constituting an injunction on state to take reasonable steps to progressively realise the right to access to adequate housing. Thirdly, section 26(3) proscribes arbitrary evictions by mandating that evictions be authorised by a court order made after having regard to “all the relevant circumstances”.Section 26(3) of the Constitution has been given effect to by the following legislations: the Land Reform (Labour Tenants) Act, 3 of 1996, the Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act, 31 of 1996, the Extension of Security of Tenure (ESTA) Act 62 of 1997 and the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from, and Unlawful Occupation (PIE) Act 19 of 1998. Significantly, whereas the first three other pieces of legislation intend to apply to specific types of land, PIE Act applies to all land throughout South Africa, and to occupiers who have no rights of occupation. 2. Evictions under PIEPIE prohibits unlawful eviction, and adumbrates the procedures to be followed when evicting unlawful occupiers. It also fortifies the ‘court order’ requirement listed in section 26(3) of the Constitution. Squatting is decriminalised, and the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, 52 of 1951 (PISA), is repealed. The Act further criminalises unlawful evictions and also provides for the special consideration to be given to the rights of the elderly, children, disabled persons and women headed households.The ambit of PIE is broad covering unlawful occupiers who did not have consent to occupy the impugned land. The Act also applies to all land throughout South Africa.E. The International law standards on evictionsIt is imperative to consider international law because it played an important role in the drafting of the Constitution, and the right to adequate housing is recognised in some of the human rights instruments, to which South Africa is party to. Further, sections 39 and 233 of the Constitution provide that courts must consider international law when interpreting the rights in the Constitution. In S v Makwanyane the Constitutional Court held that international law provided a framework to evaluate and understand the rights in the Constitution. At an international level it has been recognised that the practice of forced evictions violates several human rights, specifically the right to adequate housing. Governments have been urged to: protect all people currently threatened with forced eviction by adopting all necessary measures based upon effective participation, consultation and negotiation with affected people; and to ensure that any eviction that is otherwise deemed lawful is carried out in a manner that does not violate any of the human rights of those evicted.The United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) is a body tasked with monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1996 (ICESCR) by State Parties. Although South Africa has signed but not ratified the ICESCR, the general comments made by the UN Committee on CESCR are relevant to the interpretation of the right to access to adequate housing in the South African context. The UN Committee on CESCR noted a myriad of factors to be taken into cognisance when determining whether a shelter can be categorised as falling within the ambit of “adequate housing”. These factors include: legal security of tenure; availability of services; materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy. In General Comment 7 adopted on 16 May 1997, the procedural and substantive factors in relation to forced evictions were set out. Some of the salient factors include: all feasible alternatives have to be explored during consultation with the affected people to avoid, or at least minimise, the need to use force; evictions should not be carried out during bad weather or at night unless the affected people consent; and information on the proposed evictions, and where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected.F. The Jurisprudence of the courts1. GrootboomGovernment of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom was a case concerning 900 individuals who had set up a rudimentary camp on private land following their eviction in mid-winter Cape Town. The germane ruling of the court was that “at the very least” evictions had to be conducted “humanely”.2. P E MunicipalityThe case of Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers (PE Municipality)was heard on the backdrop of the legislature crafting the PIE Act. Sachs J penning for the court reviewed the way in which the apartheid legal order had deliberately sought to make evictions as easy as possible. According to Sachs J, section 26(3) was an inversion of apartheid law, requiring unlawful occupiers to be treated with “dignity and respect”, not as “obnoxious social nuisances”. Thus a ‘new normality’ has permeated the legal landscape of evictions since it is now recognised that “normal ownership rights of possession, use and occupation” are now offset by “a new and equally relevant right not to be arbitrarily deprived of a home”. It was held that section 26(3) of the Constitution, “evinces special constitutional regard for a person’s place of abode” and that “a home is more than just a shelter from the elements. It is a zone of personal intimacy and family security”. In unison with Grootboom, Sachs J held that it was not enough to show that a municipality has in place a programme designed to house the largest number of people over the shortest period of time in the most cost-effective way.Thus, the PE Municipality infused the spirit of “Ubuntu” into the PIE Act, coupled with the constitutional requirement of reasonableness as propounded by Grootboom.3. Olivia Road The case of Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburgcame as a result of Johannesburg’s inner city regeneration strategy. In this case the Constitutional Court fledged out the concept of “meaningful engagement”. Yacoob J held that most significant steps in the implementation of housing policy had to be taken after meaningful engagement with people affected by it. It was noted that where the state intends to remove or displace people from their existing housing, engagement is normally a prerequisite to the institution of eviction proceedings. The engagement must be individual and collective, must be undertaken without secrecy, and should focus on meeting the reasonable needs of an affected community and providing alternative accommodation where it is needed.5. Joe Slovo The Joe Slovocase was about the eviction of a large settled community from their homes in the Joe Slovo informal settlements in Cape Town. They were evicted so that the N2 Gateway Housing Project could go ahead. This Project was a pilot project to test the implementation of the BNG programme. A number of important points came out of the case. The Constitutional Court noted that it would be ideal for the state to engage individually and carefully with each of the families involved. Government must make an effort to engage with communities rather than impose decisions taken at a political level. When a housing programme is put into place there must be meaningful engagement between the government and those involved. The goal in engagement is to find a mutually acceptable solution to the difficult issues that confront the government and residents in providing adequate housing. The government must engage meaningfully in terms of section 26(2) of the Constitution. It must also act fairly in terms of section 33 of the Constitution as stated in PAJA.6. Abahlali The Abahlali case was a challenge to the KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-emergency of Slums Act, 6 of 2007 (Slums Act). This Act aims to eliminate slums in KwaZulu-Natal. It allows for evictions without meaningful engagement. Section 16 of the Act says a municipality must start proceedings for the eviction of unlawful occupiers if the owner or person in charge of the land fails to do so within the time period stated by the MEC. This section of the Act was challenged in the Abahlali case, with the Constitutional Court holding that section 16 of the Act was unconstitutional because it gave too much power to the MEC and seriously undermined the protections in section 26(2) of the Constitution. 7. Blue Moonlight In City of Johannesburg v Blue Moonlight Properties the Court had to deal with the duties of the municipality where the evictor was a private landlord and eviction was likely to lead to homelessness. The germane facts of this matter were that 86 people faced the eviction from a disused set of factory buildings and warehouses in Saratoga Avenue, Berea, Johannesburg. The occupiers alleged and proved that an eviction would leave them homeless as such joined the City in the proceedings. The City denied that it had any obligation to provide accommodation to occupiers facing eviction by a private landowner. The City stated that the obligation lay with provincial government, to which it had applied for funding in terms of the Emergency Housing Policy and had been refused. In the Constitutional Court, Van der Westhuizen J, found that the PIE Act limited the rights of owners to undisturbed use and enjoyment of their property. It was held that, if homelessness would otherwise result, section 26 of the Constitution and the PIE Act required that the owner patiently wait to vindicate her property until the State has given a reasonable opportunity to discharge its obligations, grounded in Grootboom, to provide alternative accommodation.Further, it was held that the municipality could not deflect its obligations onto national and provincial government. The municipality had an obligation to plan and procure resources to meet emergency housing needs within its area of jurisdiction. It was held that the municipalities were better posited to react, engage and plan to fulfil the needs of local communities. Also, a municipality could not pick and choose which housing crises it responds to. Rather, it had to prioritise its response to emergency housing situations in a reasonable manner. The court noted that to differentiate between emergency housing situations caused by eviction by reference to the identity and purposes of the evictor was unreasonable, since it matters little to a homeless person what the cause of her homelessness is. Her need is the same.PART 2A.The crystallised principles1. Alternative AccommodationIt is now trite principle that it is only just and equitable to evict unlawful occupiers if alternative accommodation is provided where an eviction would otherwise result in homelessness. The duty to provide alternative accommodation applies not only when an organ of state evicts people from their land, but also when a private landowner applies for the eviction of unlawful occupier/occupiers.Although the nature and standard of the alternative accommodation to be provided has not been clearly resolved, it is clear that certain so-called alternative accommodation will not pass constitutional muster. This was made clear in the recent ruling in the South Gauteng High Court where the court held that the gender segregation of married couples and the day time lock-out for residents imposed by the City of Johannesburg’s outsourced arrangements to provide alternative accommodation impinged on various constitutional rights. The rights which were infringed by such an arrangement were found to include the right to human dignity, privacy and security of person.2. Consideration of all relevant circumstancesSection 26(3) provides that no one may be evicted from their home or have their home demolished without a court order authorising such eviction after having due regard to “all the relevant circumstances”. This was affirmed in Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality where the court stated that section 26(3) does not permit legislation authorising eviction without a court order. The PIE Act amplifies this by providing that a court may not grant an eviction order unless the eviction sought would be “just and equitable” in the circumstances. The court thus has to have regard to a number of factors including but not limited to: whether the occupiers include vulnerable categories of persons (the elderly, children and female-headed households), the duration of occupation and the availability of alternative accommodation or the state provision of alternative accommodation in instances where occupiers are unable to obtain alternatives on their own. 3. The law of joinderAnother principle that has crystallised is the law of joinder, viz. municipalities must be joined where eviction is likely to result in homelessness, is now part of our law. Wallis JA amplified on this in Changing Tides:Whenever the circumstances alleged by an applicant for an eviction order raise the possibility that the grant of that order may trigger constitutional obligations on the part of a local authority to provide emergency accommodation, the local authority will be a necessary party to the litigation and must be joined.This is because section 26 of the Constitution’s positive obligations in respect of the provision of alternative accommodation to evictees who would otherwise be rendered homeless lie primarily with the state rather than private parties. 4. Onus of ProofThe onus of proof in eviction proceedings has been altered with the property owner now required in terms of the PIE Act to satisfy the court that the eviction would be just and equitable. It has been held that a property owner is required to put such information as she is able to before a court to demonstrate that an eviction would be just and equitable in the circumstances.The distinction made in section 4(6) and 4(7) of the PIE Act has been obliterated. These sections differentiated between unlawful occupiers based on the duration of occupation. The Constitutional Court in Skurweplass and Mooiplaats notwithstanding that the group of occupiers had resided on the properties for short periods held that the state was obliged to provide alternative accommodation to the occupiers as the eviction would likely render them homeless.5. Meaningful engagementA new development in the field of evictions is the requirement of “meaningful engagement”. The Court noted that the best way to ensure reconciliation between parties in a dispute would be to “encourage and require the parties to engage with each other in a proactive and honest endeavour to find mutually acceptable solutions”. Content to the concept of meaningful engagement was developed in the Olivia Road case where the Court clarified that meaningful engagement is a salient component of a reasonable state response to the housing programme. Meaningful engagement means that the occupiers, owner and the relevant municipality have to meaningfully engage on all aspects related to the eviction and the provision of temporary shelter to those who require it. It was said that meaningful engagement is ‘a two-way process in which the City and those about to become homeless would talk to each other meaningfully in order to achieve certain objectives’. These objectives include the need to determine the following: what the consequences of the eviction might be; whether the city could help to improve those consequences; whether it was possible to make the buildings safer and less of a health risk for an interim period; whether the city had any obligations to the occupiers; and when and how the city could or would carry out its obligations.In Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes (Joe Slovo), the State was castigated for taking a ‘top-down’ approach to engagement, whereby the state officials would unilaterally make decisions without consultation or inclusion of the community. Meaningful engagement is an expression of ‘bottom-up’ participatory democracy promoting transparency and accountability in the realisation of socio-economic rights leading to the resolution of disputes. In the Joe Slovo case it was held that ‘the requirement of engagement flows from the need to treat residents with respect and care of their dignity’.Meaningful engagement is not only required by section 26(2) of the Constitution but it also required in all evictions under the PIE Act. If engagement takes place after there has been a decision to institute eviction proceedings, it cannot be genuine or meaningful. Proper engagement includes listening to the wishes of the people who are evicted. It also includes thinking about whether the areas where they live may be upgraded in situ and whether alternative accommodation will be provided. The engagement would also include discussions on the way the eviction will take place and the timeframes for it.6. Personal accountability of municipal officialsUnfortunately, municipal officers have appeared indifferent to court orders mandating them to provide alternative accommodation. However, the courts have dealt with this attitude by providing that municipal office bearers may be held personally accountable for the State’s failure to perform. In the Mchunu it was found that the Mayor of eThekwini, the City Manager and the Director of Housing of eThekwini are constitutionally and statutorily obliged to take all necessary steps” to ensure that court orders are complied with, failing which, they may be held in contempt and fined or imprisoned. These principles were reiterated in Hlophe where Satchwell J ordered the Executive Mayor, City Manager and Director of Housing for the City of Johannesburg to personally explain why the City had not acted to provide shelter. The Court lambasted the City’s lackadaisical attitude, noting that the City “cannot continue to sit back and throw up its hands in horror every time it had to house people about to be evicted”. B. Conclusion and Recommendations1. General RemarksThis report has set out the jurisprudential pronouncements of the South African courts in relation to the constitutional right of access to adequate housing. It has been identified that the courts through giving content to the substantive provisions in the Constitution, and through their interpretation of the progressive legislative framework have infused new normative legal requirements to eviction matters. These legal requirements include inter alia the need to meaningfully engage and the state’s obligation to provide alternative accommodation where the unlawful occupiers would be rendered homeless as a result of eviction. Further, as a result of the innovative interpretation the courts have created a ‘new cluster of relationships between the parties involved in eviction proceedings.’It cannot be gainsaid that an eviction is a traumatic experience. Muller notes the following about an eviction:An eviction will cause many people to lose the support structure that they have established for themselves as well as for others who have come to rely thereon. An eviction will furthermore, perhaps most dramatically, destroy the livelihoods of individuals and their families because relocation to another area brings with it various uncertainties. These uncertainties vary from their ability to earn an income as informal traders or take up other unskilled employment that depends on living in close proximity to those employment opportunities; the general safety of the new area or the prevalence of gang related violence; the closeness of health care facilities, recreational facilities, religious institutions and schools; infrastructure; and service delivery. These circumstances should be taken into consideration by any court in determining the justice and equity of an eviction because a failure to do so may perpetuate or even exacerbate the vulnerable position of the occupiers.During evictions a lot of things often go wrong. It has been noted that when evictions are carried out in a violent manner people’s valuables such as ID books, birth certificates, school uniforms and medicine and medical prescriptions get damaged.2. RecommendationsIt has been noted above that the mandate of the Commission is to carry out research and educate on human rights and related matters. Further, the Commission under strategic objective 4 seeks to advance the realisation of human rights. In fulfilling the role of advancing the realisation of human rights, the Commission deems it fit to make some recommendations to the various stakeholders concerning the matter of evictions. It is noted that it is now trite law that an eviction without a court order is impermissible. An individual or a community can only be evicted based on a court order. Such a court order must be made after all the ‘relevant circumstances’ have been considered. It is now a prerequisite that there must be meaningful engagement between the parties before a court order authorising eviction is granted. The court will be hesitant to order the eviction of vulnerable and poor occupiers if such an eviction would render them homeless. Therefore, in the light of the above it should be noted that human rights in the Bill of Rights are indivisible, intertwined, interrelated and interlinked. As such, wherever there is an issue on the right to access to adequate housing, there always is a possibility that a number of other rights are directly or indirectly adversely affected. This is because the right to have access to housing is a critical right without which many other fundamental rights cannot be realised. The right to housing is an indispensable means of realising other rights. Therefore, whenever a municipality or private owner is faced with the situation of unlawful occupiers in his or her property, the remedy is not to unlawfully evict them. Rather, the solution lies in meaningful engagement and proper consultation to find a lasting solution which does not adversely violate the rights to human dignity, security of the person, the rights of children and any other relevant rights. Such a lasting solution invariably includes the state seeking alternative accommodation for the unlawful occupiers who would otherwise be rendered homeless as a result of such an eviction.It cannot be gainsaid that Sheriffs play a vital role during the eviction process. After the court orders eviction the sheriff is tasked with implementing the decision of the court. It is submitted that in that process the sheriffs should treat people with dignity and respect. They should conduct their actions in accordance with the Code of Conduct which were framed in terms of section 16(k) of the Sheriff Act. According to the Code of Conduct the Sheriffs must act in an impartial, unbiased and fair manner. Further, the Sheriffs should at all times not only treat the affected people with dignity and respect, but also ensure that they do not unreasonably cause damage to the property concerned. This should also apply to private security companies when operating as agents on behalf of sheriffs, municipalities and/or private persons. Moreover, the South African Board of Sheriffs should be more accessible to the public. This will help the public in knowing how and where to lodge complaints of misconduct against the Sheriffs.In relation to the South African Police Services (SAPS) they must act in accordance with the strictures of the Constitution. Further, they must treat those to be evicted in a dignified and respectful manner ensuring that they do not unreasonably cause damage to property.Thus, the Commission invites a synergy between all the relevant stakeholders to ensure that the letter and dictates of the law are followed in eviction matters. Where a court order authorising eviction has been granted, such an eviction must be done humanely and in a way that does not impinge on the human dignity of those being evicted. Sachs J, noted that ‘the integrity of the rights-based vision of the Constitution is punctured when governmental action augments rather than reduces denial of the claims of the desperately poor to the basic elements of a decent existence’.Therefore, the ‘spirit of ubuntu’ must permeate eviction of unlawful occupiers. This is because we are not islands to ourselves but are part of the rainbow nation. The unlawful occupiers must not be construed as objects. This is because as Justice Sachs so aptly stated in the Port Elizabeth Municipality:“It is not only the dignity of the poor that is assailed when homeless people are driven from pillar to post in a desperate quest for a place where they and their families can rest their heads. Our society as a whole is demeaned when State action intensifies rather than mitigates their marginalisation.”.BibliographyCourt judgmentsAbahlali baseMjondolo Movement of South Africa and Another v Premier of the Province of KwaZulu Natal and Others 2012(2) BCLR 99 (CC)City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC)City of Johannesburg v Changing Tides 74 (Pty) Ltd and Others 2012 (6) SA 294 (SCA)Dladla v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality Case number: 39502/12 (Unreported)Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 CCHlophe and Others v Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Others 2013 (4) SA 121 (GSJ)Mchunu and Others v Executive Mayor of eThekwini and Others 2013 (1) SA 555(KZD)Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and Others 2008 (3) 208 (CC)Occupiers of Portion R25 of the Farm Mooiplaats v Golden Thread 2012 (2) SA 337 (CC)Occupiers of Skurweplaas v PPC Aggregate Quarries 2012 (4) BCLR 382 (CC)Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2012 (2) SA 598 (CC)Port Elizabeth Municipality v Various Occupiers 2005 (1) SA (CC)Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes 2010(Sailing Queen Investments v Occupants La Collen Court 2008 (6) BCLR 666 (W).3) SA 545 (CC)S v Makwanyane and Another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC)Research reports and journalsG Muller ‘Evicting unlawful occupiers for health and safety reasons in post-apartheid South Africa’ (forthcoming in the South African Law Journal)L Chenwi and K TissingtonEngaging meaningfully with government on socio-economic rights: A focus on the right to housing Socio-Economic Rights Institute in South Africa (SERI) & the Community Law Centre (CLC) Research Report(2010) (accessed on 21 August 2014)M Clark Evictions and alternative accommodation in South Africa: An analysis of the jurisprudence and implications for local government Socio-Economic Rights Institute Report (2013) summary web.pdf (accessed on 21 August 2014).Holding your Ground: Revisiting Evictions in South Africa, (Accessed on 29 August 2014).LegislationConstitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 Code of Conduct of South African Board for Sheriffs, 1990. Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997Human Rights Commission Act, 54 of 1994Interim Protection of Informal Land Rights Act 31 of 1996Land Reform Act 3 of 1996Prevention of Illegal Eviction from, and Unlawful Occupation Act 19 of 1998Sheriffs Act 90 0f 1986 (as Amended bySheriffs Amendment Act 14 of 2012) International InstrumentsCommission on Human Rights Resolution 2004/28: Prohibition of forced evictions, adopted on 16 April 2004UN doc. E/1992/23UN doc. E/1998/22, annex IV ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download