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~~
.