ACHPR
African Commission on
Human and Peoples' Rig!lts
Human Rights our
Collective Responsibility
104. The Complainants further argued that al~hough the Supreme Court of Appeal
in its judgment at paragraph [14], set aside the High Court Order mandating the
Municipality to purchase Portion 41 fron) the IDM Trust, the Supreme Court of
Appeal agreed that the High Court Judge "was right in coming to the
conclusion that the Municipality had no~ dealt with the problems of informal
settlement on the property with measures of alacrity which could reasonably be
expected of them". 20
I
105. The Complainants submitted that they keserve to enjoy the same rights and
respect as the rest of the country and the only way,'fb enjoy such right is by the
Municipality, a sub-national government of the"R;espond,ii'lt State, delivering on
its housing obligations with respect to th oC9,pKahtsof PdtB.on 41. They argued
that give~ ~hat.they entered u?o~ Portio~)~~/~q~,~
the~.~~~~a~~'~,9.~.the
~unicip.al~ty,
the Municipality should assist In pr .ent11;:!go~;,theIr.:
e'X,IctIg,!1,:Of ,I!1:providing
alternative accommodation, which it.h tefusetl.::to do>,: "'" _'-..o,
- ,
J -- "_.-'
..."
- -~
1
,,_"- "
\\~i~ ~("~~\'>,
106. The Complainants further SllQjnitte Il:,b~t g:Wen that 'tne",Sputh African
Government and the Constiti:itioh9:1 Court'i:~~.~lsto protect 't~lhuman rights
enshrined in the Bill of Rights of't~e:,~oJth R~Lts~n Constitution, the dismissal
of the Complainants' application for~:1~~yeto "aBF~al ~:mthe ground that the
J "~'.
application had no .prospect of s~~cess'; c;i~nied 'tljE3riYaccess to an effective
» .
107.
".
..."
.,
-",O'_'
':'~~
._ ..
6,._?-
:::::!t~:::::~5:et::r~:::~:~r:l::::O:~
accommodatiq,WJ;r.n.
d eVict.ionwi.t~ou~''.~~~;'remedyof alternati~e acc.omrr:odation
would put theJ.1il:,;;<:!~d
their famlhe~" 11{J;§ar even more degrading situation than
th@y:,cp,rrentlyare:" .ey further ar,(guedthat the inhuman nature of their current
'<:.
P:'i'/
I
acc?~o~~:ion
crf ._,T;t;~}~;f,t~'&i~;J41
is tragically illustrated by the shack fire
Whlch}<Il1e(t,~o~men 111 u[·y:!Q009.
\"
:
'v, ,
',
""~<'.:,--.........
~
(iii) Aile ged Vi;;!.~~~~'
~jArlt.cle~.nand 24 of the1frican
=.
..
.
108. The Complainants submitted that the Respondent State IS In VIOlatIOnof Article
22 of the Afr~c~l1>Charter. They argued tat Article 22 is prima facie violated by
the mere facftHat they have had to livel in a severely overcrowded Portion 40
that resulted
dangerously unhygienic conditions and various social problems
as neighbours constantly fought with eaoh other over living space.
in
109. The Complainants also pointed out that lpart from the water damage causea;;:t0~
I
~\.lMAN.1N
">.'
their shack structures, the constant flood in and around the shaC!:ioS~
~6lRI1lJitg ..,~;~,.
0_ . ~
1,:£
0 /,('
c:{-
~"
,,:>V
~
'?
•
20
~
I
•
•
•
·.1 ~
('I
;'<.)
0
"I>I>-u-v
:\~ ~
\ "'6-
'h
~0'
s\Q1r
is (/)I;,
Q:'
I
s'
~ tJN
OMME E1 0 ~.'"
''X't~~~
Q
X-<:) 9." / ;'
X-V /'
'bl' ~H<;;.s~.. ,/
-1I11~~
r.~ru;~4-J.
'. ~
0'. '.
\)) 1'>-,\'
~ % I',
h 2~I3ff:~
",.~.
Applicants Response to Respondent's Second Submission on Admissibility dated~Mar
{;
paras 11 7 2
•
. .
.mo..,.~'"''''
..