The Government of the Republic of South Africa v. Grootboom
South Africa Constitutional Court
2001 (1) SA 46 (2001)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Irene Grootboom (defendant) resided in Wallacedene, a public squatter community in the Cape Metro area, while she waited for government low-income housing assistance. Most low-income housing applicants waited years for assistance. Because of the inhumane conditions in Wallacedene, Grootboom, along with hundreds of other adults and children, left Wallacedene and established the New Rust squatter community on nearby private land. Grootboom and the other residents were later forcibly evicted from New Rust by municipal authorities, who bulldozed the housing structures and burned the residents’ possessions. Grootboom was rendered homeless. Grootboom filed an urgent application with the Cape of Good Hope High Court seeking governmental housing assistance. The High Court ordered the government (plaintiff) to provide basic shelter, holding that the South African Constitution guaranteed access to adequate housing. The government appealed, arguing the existing government housing program fulfilled the constitutional requirement to provide citizens with access to housing. The existing government housing program, framed around the Housing Act, involved municipal, regional, and national programs, financial subsidies, and new home building projects, all geared toward a progressive realization of every individual’s constitutional right of access to adequate housing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Yacoob, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.