Previous 21 / 52 Next

ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility 100. The Complainants argued that the neglec by the Respondent State's municipal government to fulfil its obligations to pro~ide! housing amounts to a violation of their right to respect for human dignit~. They argued that the fact that the Applicants now face imminent eviction and homelessness at the hands of the IDM Trust due to the Municipality's misrepresentation and neglect is degrading and that such inhuman treatment is prohibited by the African Charter. 101. The Complainants also submitted that ~re occupying Portion 41, many of the current occupiers of the Property submitted their C forms, containing an application for housing, to the Municipality.v J;:;Q~~:'~81;gued that it was their understanding that Reconstructive and D~veloRW'~r;_t'P{'''''''' amme (RDP) houses would be built for them within five ye~rs, <i£~;~8!.,earlieVI"~ s from 1997. They claimed that on 20 August 2004, frustrate? hy'y~a~';';J'2fw~~i!ng for houses, they met the Councillor for Ward 35, Germi~~rt~'A:~r,iel'M~~.am1f· . ,',q advised that the Property had been purchased ~~~S~pali~j~~~,. t at·&lii)eside~ts were now free to move on to the .gFopert~{,since ~li-eRDP 11.~~~eswould be buil t thereon. They further claimedthat this r~.pr~s~n.tation by tIl. ·lJiricipality was reinforced by the MunicipalifY'~;f5to.~ure~el).t:.qf a Grader on. ovember 2004 to grade roughly half of ~be Propeitifgr theit"d:~~~ling on the property in early December by the 76 ~9us¢,holds. ):~:)".I.). '. ,pi;;t,hr 'j, " 102. The complainaI}t~~s~t~~S~~~it~:B~i~~~ t~J'~~~~Jact~h~'t the Applicants took the in~tiative to re,s'.~l~etheir housi~&,~nd livihg Fjjy~Jems i~ Portion 40 by engaging WIth t~e proM~ncial ~nd local g~~~~~~nt p~oves theI~ ~es~erate need for a better hfe. Tlh~y claimed that the"des:,~s~cmof the Municipality to leave them high and drY"~~'1~ucha critical tim~ 'ot~fed while givin.g assurances .:hat their problem of n~np,~lessness was ;')beInf addressed IS reprehensible and uriacceptable, and :~~<?,~~ted t~ ;~:liolat· on of their dignity under the African Charter . '. ,., ".'. v \~ ,<. '... ,..... '. . ,\' , j_>; :::.).;v' ; '. (ii) Alleged vio?atio~. of/rrtic:les 17, 18 and 19 of the African Charter '. -, / '\._"." / '~"''''' 103. The Complainants "0' .: <», ': s~bmitted that the Respondent State has violated the provisions of. Article 19 of the African Charter. They contended that by failing to address the housing problem they face, 'the Municipality has forgotten that the Applicants hk-\i-ehuman rights that n~ed to be protected.'19 They further contended that the Municipality not only has a duty to assist them in terms of the Housing Act an~ the Constit:rtion of)th~ Republic of So~th ~fric~ has a duty to provide them WIth alternative accommodation m<"-"t'~~~f~, • • I <.~ eviction, / ~0 ~""I'?-\I\T .1'1> 1}-::0~ ;l <0 v'<' ~ QlS} (:j .. . ... ~. (~ ,)!;i 'Q '\ °tll ~ ~ "iiU>~ Complainants' Wntten Address on the Admissibility dated 22 February 2010 pa~as 1.4. ~'" ~/~ g; tl 19 Applicants' Response to Respondent's Second Submi sion on Admissibility dated S M\trch"20JJ~1>- !f}!!} I I>QQ./! paras 1.1.7.1. ,1;, C'c ~0 i'(I' 18 V "-v '<:' '." !:l? "ISS/ON c}~ 0'< I\';~~ of(; .' "~~Jifr5~~ .

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