ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Hiqhts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
recovery of a personal property by a third party, being the Trustees, and does
not involve the determination of the rights! of the Complainants, which are
alleged to have been violated by the Resp1nd~nt State.
76.
iJ
The Commission notes further that
w~s in response to the Eviction
Application that the Complainants had £iled a counter-application against the
Municipality in which they sought reliefs ~or purposes of protecting their rights
- that is, to alternative and adequate housing and the constitutional obligation
of the Respondent State's municipal govJrnment to ensure that they are not to
be evicted pending such provision by tHe MuniciR~lity.::The. reliefs sought in
this counter-application have been litigatJd be~ote."airl:he\'n.ational courts of the
Respondent State, including the highest botP;fjtj:~fthelanEJ:\:r-the Constitutional
Court - with no success.
', " ','
,,
~ <.
(:::;_;'
~F'~!~\_
'-
/.
',"f>,.,
< ~~
~
'''''~'
The pending suit before the local co ~r~e1at~~;~~~i\the"~l'R~IFalibiY:'f~f~Vi,€tion
by
the private owners of the Proper. . ~i~.,~>.uJ......
'Jh~t suit \~l~
long'e~:\~l:).dures··~gainst the
Respondent State. By the Re~pq!ldenf\~~~t~' s"!i!~Gcount,the<9r;9plainants
are
expected to defend that suit 'agatn.~tthe IPri¥~t~ owners eve~:!.Hough, from the
evidence presented to the Commission, thet;!,S!.lfB:plainantshave in documents
filed before local courts. prejtidicialfY")~l~kriow1EV\ed that they are in illegal
occupation of the pr"Op~itX. TheY:4r4t(~-'~:~,~~;;Fecor
~f>i~Cimithat they "never
obtained the ~~f~?}i§~:~?n"
6(:.t~~/~1}~st t§\~~$i~e<i,QJ:{the?roperty" ~nd ha:e
repeatedly re~~~red tb themsel~?:~"as the rUnl~;t"jul Occupiers of Po~tIon 41" In
d.ocuments ~,~fore .t~e courts.Z~~,>.~o,ever/. the!' not only dispute the
cIrcumstance~A~f their Illegal occupa"t1~~q!l the baSIS that they moved unto the
property at th~.:;il,1stanceof the Responcl,e~(State, they also invoke the obligation
of}~e Respond<i~~).~t~te to _provi~1 ait~~native ho~sing and essential services
pur~ua~t to South\~~~~.a' s BIll of/ "ghts and the Afncan Charter.
">. "
"C%~11~:;i~:{,
.
I
78. Prorrijhe-Commission's
. .e point, the present Communication before the
Col1ll11iS~.i~np~_r.t~iP§
..~~allegations of hUrl an and peoples' rights violations, not
by the pr~Y9.te owne;-:rsof the Property but, by the Respondent State. The
communication proceeded after the coun er claim against the Respondent State
had been de~~,rmined with finality by the Icourts. The counter claim pertained to
the housing(crisis
of the Complainants and the necessity for alternative
accommodation and essential services. The decision by the Respondent State's
appellate courts that the Eviction Application by the private owners before the
High Court should proceed seems to £ore~lose the Complainants' claims against
the Respondent State for alternative and Jdequate housing.
.' ~ I-\UM;~- ,
77.
./
:>
-<;__~~;
......~ ~ ._- .....
\::\<,
.
, ~0
"llvo
:-,0 ~c?ETARJ4r
,0
•.' ",'"
'"
"~'~
(:'0
-o
~
11 See Annexu~e B - Ebrahim ~ada .NO & Drs v Unlawful eccupiers
of Portion 41 (a.P9~tio of P~l'15
~ ~ ~
the farm Rooikop 140 as described In the Deed of Transfer Mo: T2849/2004) Case No: Q?I~~70 }u&g,~ent ~ 215
delivered by NA Cassim AJ on 15 February 2008 para 13.
.: ~~
AU-UA
~
en!
:~
\~
\
. .
';5:,
Q
u/o
".
(~.'
'V4"RICP.\\'I'C.
o<vC:>
<f}1If
.'-J,,?'vpl'
~t"mo EiJ5l~f~!lf1-"
~~r-f'
f