Previous 49 / 52 Next

.' , -; )' ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility occupation without either dealing fairly with the owners or correcting its own mistake. 232. From the facts of this case, it is clear that the Complainants are in no position to afford proper housing otherwise they would not be living in temporary shack structures. If they get evicted from the Property, there is no alternative land on which to erect their temporary shelters. This will unfairly expose the Complainants to the elements and undoubtedly violate their dignity as human beings. As a group of people, who have howhere else to go, they are entitled to insist on their right to housing under thk ConstitH:!:~§p\;Q,f the Respondent State and the African Charter and to invoke the obl,~g~tlo;t~<Q~:~,t.he Respondent State to fulfil it. I x,~;j",j" \I;riti 233.Havingcomeupon the Propertyat the,~f~e~f ' '~~~i:'ij!f'~'lI.t,it is no fault of the Complainants that they. be,~~:B~[U,r" aWfut':,?CCUPt~~~,',"""O" f"pn, ""r~perty. The Government has an obllgatiorr; to:'I.,addres~,,; the um~~,yful occupation of property belonging to a third :p'arty which was.a tempoii1~:Y,l'ffi~asureit took when it brought the ~omplaili~~~~~~,F" onl,"th~I)?'~"O" perty by pr~~~a:i~g temporary shelter for them pendingwhen the¥sr,, vk acce~,§?toadequate housing, As such, while the Commission<f'ci'oes not fin" , violation-of Article 18 of the African :A/:1,':~!:\ :;i.~,_,. .<;':<~-::.,,>: ." Charter, it urges the~;e0¥:~ln1nent s the 'It!~galoccupation associated with the tempo.rCl~y~,~,cc~~~,?iN' n of [ ~i~~,~~rl~'lnants in order to protect their right to faniily life-in liriet "ih the A ricai);:~llarter. , .. ~;:,)V .:-j "'r Alleged violation of Article 19 . ">" ';:{k---;:}' .''<'', 234. The Complainants also alleged a Vi<ol~trg"of Article 19 of the African Charter. ArtiG,le19 of theAfrican Charter P!.9vide that: \:-:~;~[~~'>:':'h '" "'C\::,,:, ",:- .. ,', ", ,,', ,', ,),. AWrrl!fdpJ~s,\~ball be eqtidl;~l~¢r{shallenjoy the same respect and shall have the same right~j:,NotPting;slzqll justifY the domination of a people by another. ... .. ~ : ": , ," i:~:~,,%-Fif~~~ 235. Ar~icle -iii:~:j~qUalityof all pe9ple~, and the right as a co~lective to enJoy the s~ple respect and have the saIIjle nghts as other South Africans who have been p" viged housing by the Respondent State. 236. The complairia~~s submitted that they 1eserve to enjoy the same rights and respect as the rest of the country and the !only way to enjoy such right is by the Municipality delivering on its housing obligations with respect to the OCC'l!R~!l~~ of Portion 41.71 , ~MAN A~ "o~ cRc1AR/4r ~00 C:J<:: II! :/(.) ~\ ~1f:~ ~', 't5~: '\/ g Applicants' response to respondent's second submissii n on admissibility on beey _ 03 e r~ti1?1ic of South Africa (date 8 March 2013) para 1.1.7.2. \'. ~.<l. %'?: AU"" 0-<>" ~("'~i},\ 'iZ 71 ..o«'~ t} 0' is',s';o '\)v... (J Ii /Yo \'%( ( ~., c, '" 4"RICI\\IA'<> "-.: Q, ~,l P~~~:L"-- l s:/,,'

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