Previous 31 / 52 Next

. '.' ._::. '.,. ACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights Human Rights our Collective Responsibility their rights remain protected under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction From and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act whio balances the rights of illegal occupiers with that of the land owner. The Re pondent State submitted that it is not guaranteed that the IDM Trust's application for eviction will succeed in the event that the matter proceeded in the High Court. 153. In terms of the impracticability of JursUing the remaining remedies, the Respondent State submitted that the (Commission's finding that it would be impracticable for the Complainants tb pursue their remedies in the South African court is unclear. Relying dn the pri"nCipl~, of subsidiarity, the Respondent State argues that South Af~ican couifs'are<I;;e~t placed to interpret South African law and that South Africkn ju.9~~~:qre besl\lJlaced to understand the plight of vulnerable South Africans. ,Cit" a rt-q:&p"er,~F~.~"~:s decided by the c?urts, t~e. Respondent State argu~d t~~.y ~,~:kfrlc~fh~,0U:tt~;:lh.Clv~"c.~.r.ne to the aid of victims of alleged human ng, buses b,~§ed dI\4he OUtC0m~,of several decided cases.P And that the CC?~p .j~:pts ha~~jadva~~~chZlO sub~lssions as to what prejudice they stand t~is.uffer 'If(§..8u~Q;;Africancou1\ts,.-;i£they ran the ordinary course of the eviction' p'r~'G~,edihgs1ij~~ ,ore the High C9:tirt. 154. The Respondent State ,s:u~mitted ~~~:]~J~alre~e ,,~have n~t been exhausted and the complaina~~§:·h'\v.!:,;~dvan~~~El";10~~p§tsons W'l,~?'¥twould not be possible to pursue any 0~J~~i;!N.JTIedl~~)~:~0nsttateCli~~¥,.the~ ~espondent State. 155. On the basis '(~ese ::;gume~~~l1.e R~POh~~~'State urged that Conunission to make a fin~~~g that the Respona~iit,?~ate has not violated any of the rights in the African Ch:~her. '.' . , ~(:\::~:~;:~, . )1.\. ~~~~~:;_'J':;:. ..' The COll1~ission' s a:ri~~y,~ison the Me °ts ·~C:~W<':::'~" '~"" > .,,:'::.,,-, _ .~> Respondent~,~Ji., lel1~,:: the ·~i;!lftlH§i 't'e Writren submissions 156. Before '~~d:,~e'sirig::t~r';F;garties'.submis ions, the Commission no:es that the Responde~r)i/S~ate h~~;i,/taken Issue wfth. the way the compl~m~nts have presented \~~elr arguments on the IIjlents before the Commission.s? The Respondent'State argued that the Complainants' submissions are vague' as it is not clear wh~t;;ll1e allegations against t~e Respondent State are that need to be answered', ana that the vagueness of the Complainants' submissions violates the Respondent State's right to a fair hearing and due process. The Respondent State argued that such uncertainty places South Africa at a disad;vantage in these proceedings because it is forced t~ submit pleadings Ah,/.~, wide in scope. ~~o u«-~ 0':,:, '. r. 0 ((; ~ ...."\ 1 ~~Dav~l~_ 1r/i0 o~· .. ' !i First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic of South Africa, para 6.~~ 40 First Submission on Merits on behalf of the Republic bf South Africa, paras 5.i\\~~4.C'l 39 ;~) ~Vi t ~'·.DI'- ~ \0C?: t~'Cl- -i:-tv,:J, ~I '~\):"'t>- (/) ,g; ; &' I'-D </<,; i ~ sSION A~~\G '<'~~~~1' iG,'? ,/

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