Previous 3 / 52 Next

":-, . ,- , AC PR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights . - Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 7. The Complainants also allege that have submitted applications for alternative housing for shack dwellers the Municipality under the plans and programmes of the Gauteng Government in South Africa which ought to have been built within five from 1997. Due to a lack of ample provision for their informal settlement the housing plans of the Municipality, there is no supply of electricity to shack residences. They rely on the burning of coal fire for cooking and ..':T<,.,. ...... f-h which often cause shack fires, injuries and deaths. They claim that July 2009, a fire incident which arose from the burning of coal on the led to the untimely deaths of two residents. 8. The Complainants claim that they ha without any houses in sight from the (T{;nTI3,.:nrn of meetings with representatives of address their housing crisis; and of the authorities including an from the IDM Trust, there has 9. The Complainants claim the Property, the IDM Trust brought an" Local Division of the High Court , to South African law. The Compl~<:li¥l~A_t~ a counter application against the Myfjiflpality that the Municipality was under a constitutional and sta have a policy and programme I " in place to address the situation by purchasing the property frOni(;fheTrustees for a and give adequate priority and re~ources to tJi~ir:,:{leeds.They also/\ t an order to prevent the IDM Trust fr6iv]:'~:yicting th~11}\£l'Qm the Property suitable alternative accommodation or la~a~~~;:clv.ailable'tb~t1eh1j::;'-;::->:' -'\~~h,>i'-';:·;;]ti}\:~!~~}'~'" ~ ' .. -~":~;'~'> _;,;i:,> waiting endlessly have held a series t to part buy the property 10. Based 'Q'lJ cou '@<?pments provided the Commission, it is shown that the High Cd~~_t:'~&bnd-'th~t~~Jfie Municipality to put into action an appropriate emergency/plan to address the plight homelessness in the Rooikop Informal Settlement \':, d ordered the Municipal government to purchase the Property from the ID >ustfor the sum of 000.00within 30 days of the order as well as make 'provision for essential to the occupiers.' 11. The Municipality lodged an appeal t the High Court's order for the purchase of the property at the South Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA). In upholding the appeal, the SCA that while the trial court rightlx; fQund that the Municipality had not adequa I dealt with the complai~~~~ of homelessness on the Property, it was justified in adoptin~@ffi~r6~/ffiat<': ~ 1 See Ebrahim Dada NO & Others v Unlawful Occupiers

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Communication 377/09 - Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and others v. South Africa

ACHPR Decision

Preview

Type of Document

Decision

Keywords

Adequate Standard of Living
Cruel and Degrading Treatment
Economic, Social and Cultural Development
Education
Equality
Protection of Family and Vulnerable Groups
Right to Education

Case Head Notes: The Complainants live in Portion 41, in temporary shack dwellings on a property which is part of Roodekop Informal Settlement (RIS). They previously lived in Portion 40 of the RIS, where they experienced frequent flooding to the point that it was uninhabitable at some points of the year. They have complained to the appropriate authorities in South Africa regarding their homelessness, and requested that priority, and resources, be given to their needs, including alternative housing which they say should have already been built. The Complainants state that, in 2006, the owner of the Property, attempted to evict them in a Court proceeding. The Complainants submitted a counter-application against the municipality, praying that the muncipality had a constiutional and statutroy obligation to have a program in place to address their homeless situation by purchasing the property from the Trustees and giving adequate resources to the Complainants needs. Based on court documents, the High Court found that the municipality failed to put into action an appropriate emergency plan to address the plight of homelessness in RIS and ordered the Municipality to purchase the property and make provision for essential services for the occupiers. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Courts decision, and the Complainants' appeal to the Consitutional Court was unsuccessful. The Commission found no violation of Article 5, stating that the Respondent State cannot be held responsible for the poor conditions when the Complainants lived in Portion 40, because they did not authoritze the Complainants accomodation in the first place. Additionally, the Commission stated that there is no clear evidence that the Respondent State has violated Article 5 with respect to Portion 41 because there is no clear evidence that the Respondent State is not following due process to meet the demand for housing. Specifically, the Commission stated that there is no specific obligation for the Respondent State to address the housing and other problems of the Complainants within a timeline demanded by the Complainants. The Commission found no violation of Article 17 because there was no evidence that a violation of the right to education had actually occurred. The Commission found no violation of Article 18, but, regardless, it urged the Respondent State to address the Complainants housing issues. The Commission found no violation of Article 19 because they state that the information provided by the Complainants did not demonstrate that they are treated differently from others of similar conditions. The Commission found no violation of Article 22 because they stated that no evidence was advanced by the Complainants to demonstrate that the state is to blame for the Complainants deplorable socio-economic conditions. The Commission found no violation of Article 24 because, while they state that there is room for the Respondent State to improve its program in creating a healthy environment, the evidence does not support that the gaps in the Respondent State's efforts are to a level that meets the requirements for finding a violation of Article 24. Regardless, the Commission states that the Respondent State should make extra effort to adopt targeted measures to address the housing conditions of the effected community with urgency.

Country

South Africa

Outcome: Decided on Merits

Year Decided: Aug 2, 2023

Rights Alleged to be Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 17: Right to Education
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Rights Not Violated (ACHPR Provisions)

ACHPR 17: Right to Education
ACHPR 18: Protection of the Family and Vulnerable Groups
ACHPR 19: Right of All Peoples to Equality and Rights
ACHPR 22: Peoples' Right to Economic, Social and Cultural Development
ACHPR 24: Right to a General Satisfactory Environment
ACHPR 5: Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

Duration of Procedure

Aug 13, 2009 ~ Aug 2, 2023

Country Geolocation

Latitude: -30.559482

Longitude: 22.937506

Country Geolocation (linked ACHPR Decision): South Africa

Primary Documents

Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and Others v South Africa.pdf
English
ML TOC
Download View

African Human Rights CLA 2.0

Select target paragraph3

Communication 377/09 - Menduzaki Patricia Monakali and others v. South Africa

Primary Documents

Notifications