In overruling last year’s Supreme Court of Appeal decision to evict more than 400 residents from Johannesburg’s inner city, Constitutional Court Judge Zak Yacoob highlighted the applicants’ ”right to life and human dignity” as a pivotal factor.
The significance of the judgement in the case — referred to as ”The Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Jhb versus the City of Johannesburg” — is that while it will wipe out the possibility of homelessness for desperate inner-city dwellers, it throws a spanner in the works of the city’s hopes of becoming world class by 2030 as the clearing of derelict buildings is likely to slow down considerably.
This is because the judgement stipulates that meaningful, respectful and face-to-face engagement must take place before evictions. The city is also obliged to provide temporary and permanent housing solutions and upgrade the buildings in question.
The ”occupiers” were represented by the Wits-based Centre for Applied Legal Studies and law firm Webber Wentzel Bowens. In a statement earlier the City of Jo’burg bafflingly welcomed the decision of the Constitutional Court, saying it endorsed the approach currently being followed in dealing with unsafe buildings in the inner city.
”The Constitutional Court’s judgement vindicates the city’s position that it was within its administrative rights to eliminate unsafe and unhealthy buildings and to remove people from such structures for their own safety,” said Nthatisi Modingoane, a spokesperson for the City of Jo’burg.
”The court’s ruling is that it is essential for the city to engage meaningfully with people before evicting them from unsafe buildings if they would be homeless after the eviction. The court commended the city for the fact that its approach on such actions has evolved over time. The judgement is, in essence, beneficial to the city’s urban regeneration programmes.”
What the city is referring to, in its rather disingenuous response, is that when the case came before the Constitutional Court in August 2007 and judgement was reserved, further engagement between the two parties was urged by the court where both parties joined heads to come up with short-term solutions and alternative accommodation.
As we speak, all the ”occupiers” in this matter have been provided alternative accommodation in the inner city.
In reality the court case is a loss for the city as it has to pay back costs reported to run into millions of taxpayers’ rands and it got its favourable Supreme Court of Appeals judgement overturned. The city is now willing to engage, but only after three cases in which it fought tooth and nail. In the judgement the outcomes of ”engagement” include weighing what the consequences of eviction might be and testing the feasibility of rendering the existing buildings safe.
Jean du Plessis, deputy director of the Centre on Housing Rights, which was present as a friend of the court, said the problem in many derelict buildings is not the people ”but what has happened to the buildings over time and that, sometimes, it is the fault of the city managers themselves”.
The Johannesburg Development Agency said it echoed the City of Jo’burg’s views on the Constitutional Court’s judgement.