Abstract

This article examines whether, to give effect to the section 26 constitutional right to adequate housing, courts can (or should) compel the state to expropriate property in instances when it is not just and equitable to evict unlawful occupiers from privately-owned land (unfeasible eviction). This question was first raised in the Modderklip case, where both the Supreme Court of Appeal (Modder East Squatters v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; President of the Republic of South Africa v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd 2004 3 All SA 169 (SCA)) and Constitutional Court (President of the Republic of South Africa v Modderklip Boerdery (Pty) Ltd 2005 5 SA 3 (CC)). dodged the question, opting instead to award constitutional damages to the property owner for the long-term occupation of its property by unlawful occupiers. It is clear from cases such as Ekurhuleni Municipality v Dada 2009 4 SA 463 (SCA), that, mindful of separation of powers concerns, courts have until very recently been unwilling to order the state to expropriate property in such circumstances. At the same time, it is increasingly evident that the state has failed to fulfil its constitutional obligations to provide alternative accommodation for poor communities. In this context, this article argues that there is a growing need for the judiciary to consider, as part of its role to craft effective remedies for constitutional rights violations, the issue of judicial expropriation. It does so, first, through an analysis of the relevant jurisprudence on evictions sought by private landowners and, second, through an in-depth engagement of the recent Western Cape High Court case, Fischer v Persons Listed on Annexure X to the Notice of Motion and those Persons whose Identity are Unknown to the Applicant and who are Unlawfully Occupying or Attempting to Occupy Erf 150 (Remaining Extent) Phillipi, Cape Division, Province of the Western Cape; Stock v Persons Unlawfully Occupying Erven 145, 152, 156, 418, 3107, Phillipi & Portion 0 Farm 597, Cape Rd; Copper Moon Trading 203 (Pty) Ltd v Persons whose Identities are to the Applicant Unknown and who are Unlawfully Occupying Remainder Erf 149, Phillipi, Cape Town 2018 2 SA 228 (WCC).
 

Highlights

  • The issue of the judicial expropriation of property in the context of an unfeasible eviction was first raised in the Modderklip case

  • First, through an analysis of the relevant jurisprudence on evictions sought by private landowners and, second, through an indepth engagement of the recent Western Cape High Court case, Fischer v Persons Listed on Annexure X to the Notice of Motion and those Persons whose Identity are Unknown to the Applicant and who are Unlawfully Occupying or Attempting to Occupy Erf 150 (Remaining Extent) Phillipi, Cape Division, Province of the Western Cape; Stock v Persons Unlawfully Occupying Erven 145, 152, 156, 418, 3107, Phillipi & Portion 0 Farm 597, Cape Rd; Copper Moon Trading 203 (Pty) Ltd v Persons whose Identities are to the Applicant Unknown and who are Unlawfully Occupying Remainder Erf 149, Phillipi, Cape Town 2018 2 SA 228 (WCC)

  • Section 26(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 guarantees everyone's right to access to adequate housing, and section 26(3) provides that "no one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances." The protection against eviction without a court order is elaborated on in the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (PIE), which establishes in sections 4(6) and 4(7) that a court may grant an order for eviction only if it is "in the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so, after considering all the relevant circumstances"

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The issue of the judicial expropriation of property in the context of an unfeasible eviction was first raised in the Modderklip case. Seeking to contribute towards a response to the question left hanging by the SCA and CC Modderklip judges, this paper critically examines whether courts can and should require state organs to expropriate property where an eviction is not feasible. It does so a) through an analysis of the relevant jurisprudence on evictions sought by private landowners and b) in the light of the current Fischer litigation that has sought to compel the state to.

The eviction conundrum
Fischer
Conclusion
Literature
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call