The applicants were residents of the Bapsfontein Informal Settlement who had been forcibly removed and their homes demolished by the Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality after the area was declared unsafe due to dolomitic land. In Pheko I, the Constitutional Court declared the removals unlawful, found a violation of section 26 of the Constitution, and issued a supervisory order requiring the Municipality to identify nearby land, engage meaningfully with residents, provide temporary accommodation, and report back to the Court. The Municipality repeatedly failed to file required reports in compliance with court orders of 6 December 2011, 21 November 2013, and 12 March 2014. As a result, the Constitutional Court initiated contempt proceedings mero motu to determine whether the Municipality, its attorney, and certain officials should be held in contempt for non-compliance with its orders.
The Municipality and its attorney were not held in contempt of court, and the rule nisi against the Executive Mayor and Municipal Manager was discharged. The Executive Mayor, Municipal Manager, MEC for Human Settlements (Gauteng), and the Head of Department for Human Settlements were joined to the proceedings in Pheko I for purposes of implementing the supervisory order. The Municipality and its attorney were ordered to pay the applicants’ costs in the contempt proceedings, with the attorney ordered to pay his portion de bonis propriis.
This case clarifies the strict requirements for a finding of civil contempt of court, particularly against organs of state, and underscores the Constitutional Court’s supervisory role in socio-economic rights litigation. It affirms that while non-compliance with court orders is a grave constitutional matter, contempt requires proof of wilful and mala fide disobedience beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment is also significant for its use of joinder and supervisory mechanisms to secure compliance with housing rights orders and for imposing personal costs on an attorney for professional failures.