I
>
•
ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rights
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
(i)
A breach of Article 19 of the African Charter, on the basis that the
Municipality failed to deliver on its dhties to assist the Complainants as
they face eviction, and also to dclliver on its promise to upgrade their
living conditions. They note that the Supreme Court of Appeal had
agreed with the finding of the High Court that" the municipality had not
dealt with the problems of infOr~1al settlement on the property with
measures of alacrity which could reasonably be expected of them". To
this end, they argue that they desel ve to enjoy the same right and respect
as the rest of the country, which can only be achieved by the
Municipality - a sub-national goJernment"9El.fie'J~espondent State - in
living up to its commitment to address ,tl1{Comp~~pants' housing crisis
or in providing alternative accomrhodation>;~hich Ipp.asfailed to do.
(ii)
The decision of the Constituti0l1i;tr,:CQ:art
to·"di§p.1.iss,;Jli.e·'·Cpmplainants'
application for leave to appeal. CiJnied"t1;iefIl ail :~~£f~ctive"re~edyin the
form of suitable accommgdafiprl;,
either\)bn
portr~)11",41
or any other
t
".~
"
... ~
suitable alternative proB- .
'.. "
.',,' .;
1·/ . ':'. . :.;(;'>.~, ) "~.
>"
......
" '::'..
(iii)
';
..,.'/
A breach of Article 22 of ih ",... rican<<<~ter, as the t~mplainants had
"lived in a se~.~i~ly overcro J. ~I~ pladLfhqt resulted in dangerously
unhygienic c<iflia.i~~,9~S
and",;01~~fi~";:"
soci~1\:,.P5.01Jlems"
prior to being
moved to Portion 41;:~"'""<:WitchJie ',.ow face eviction.
/',/
.•
~'
\:,
.
.."
.r
I
" ,
<.>
37.
The Complai~:~nts further statee tit np.akes"j,.
0 sense to wait for the court to
grant an eviction order against t , . Jrbm Portion 41, given that they do not
have anywhereelse to go, and did nO .". 'f>themselvesin their current situation.
They claim tlt~t\:: the Respondent, [S,,fate]must take necessary measures to
e~s'*~'T~~hat
[theY~,';~a,\.~
al~ernati~~,ac~oFodation."
They further argued that
thIS\~~>~D9t;,;~~y
a cas~.s>trIg;Bt;~Cl:housmg
(as alleged by the Respondent State),
but On~,'Ufm~l;l,;gpes
to the:c:figrufy and respect deserving of the Complainants by
v.irtueqt),bei~~;;:~lj~#p~n~.:hat
it .is a ca.selthat revolves around the fundamental
rights gu~~;K~teedtb'·~1.:~;;~:ri:
the ~ill of RIgrS of the R~spondent Stat~.
38.
The Complainants also submitted that all domestic legal remedies have been
exhaus~e~ ba~~(9)onthe following facts: I that the counter-clai~ for a relief t~at
no eviction ";$,takes place before ther. are afforded SUItable alternative
accommodation, which they asked for lin their notice of motion in the court
proceedings, has b;een decided up0If' the outcome of which has been
unsuccessful; that the Order of the Hig~ Court that the municipality purchase
the land was set aside by the Supreme Court of Appeal; and the COJ1s.titut~al
Court's dismissal of the Complainants' Iapplication for leave ~~e:<."
ba~is that it had no prospec~ o~success Ion.appeal det~r~ne~~tJ:f~inar
th~;\
claim for enforcement of their right to housing and to live m ~,~ru~(~;
~ t\,'
l(';_\~:!j
,u
, ;z
,<t
\ c.;
~:I:
6
"' ..,,;::.
"r>.
o
<l::
p.,\.l'V
C),
Q
c;;!
'
'\~t~~s£~ gi<51P ~
, .>-.
~~~Ricp.:
ox;~//
'-0-.. c"-~
s' ~.
IiOMME Ei o€~
......
~F'
(
.;