Law of Property South Africa
Property A Assignment
In the case of Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and Others[1], the city wanted to evict people from their place of residence in Johannesburg. In the case, Yacoob J spoke at great lengths about the notions of meaningful engagement and reasonableness when one party is requiring an eviction order from the courts. Section 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, talks about both meaningful engagement and reasonableness with regard to citizens’ right to housing. In this regard, the actions of the state in evicting people have to be in line with the Constitution.
In the 51 Olivia Road case[2], the court issued an interdict requiring that the city and the occupiers engaged with each other meaningfully. Both parties had to file affidavits as to how successful the engagement was.[3] The appellant claimed that the city was unreasonable in deciding to evict them, because the eviction would result in their homelessness. The court held that the municipality must have known that the eviction would leave the people homeless and they ought to have engaged meaningfully with the occupiers, particularly as the occupiers were vulnerable members of society with little education or money.[4] In such circumstances, it is only if reasonable efforts at meaningful engagement were tried but failed that the eviction may proceed. If the municipality does not do this, they are at odds with s26 (2) of the Constitution, which states that the state must take reasonable steps to ensure that everyone has access to adequate housing.[5] While a municipality may not always be able to provide adequate housing for everyone, they must make a reasonable effort at doing this. s26 (3) of the Constitution holds that all relevant steps must be taken prior to an eviction taking place.
When a court is considering an eviction order, a lot of stake is put into whether or not a reasonable effort
In the case of Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and Others[1], the city wanted to evict people from their place of residence in Johannesburg. In the case, Yacoob J spoke at great lengths about the notions of meaningful engagement and reasonableness when one party is requiring an eviction order from the courts. Section 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, talks about both meaningful engagement and reasonableness with regard to citizens’ right to housing. In this regard, the actions of the state in evicting people have to be in line with the Constitution.
In the 51 Olivia Road case[2], the court issued an interdict requiring that the city and the occupiers engaged with each other meaningfully. Both parties had to file affidavits as to how successful the engagement was.[3] The appellant claimed that the city was unreasonable in deciding to evict them, because the eviction would result in their homelessness. The court held that the municipality must have known that the eviction would leave the people homeless and they ought to have engaged meaningfully with the occupiers, particularly as the occupiers were vulnerable members of society with little education or money.[4] In such circumstances, it is only if reasonable efforts at meaningful engagement were tried but failed that the eviction may proceed. If the municipality does not do this, they are at odds with s26 (2) of the Constitution, which states that the state must take reasonable steps to ensure that everyone has access to adequate housing.[5] While a municipality may not always be able to provide adequate housing for everyone, they must make a reasonable effort at doing this. s26 (3) of the Constitution holds that all relevant steps must be taken prior to an eviction taking place.
When a court is considering an eviction order, a lot of stake is put into whether or not a reasonable effort