The applicants, Mr and Mrs Mtolo and their eight children, lived in a house on property owned by the fourth respondent, where the first applicant had long been employed by the first respondent. In June–July 2021, after being told the property was sold, the roof and windows of their home were removed amid demolitions on the farm. The applicants vacated the house and alleged they were rendered homeless, sleeping in the open or in a car, with severe disruption to their children’s schooling. They obtained an urgent High Court order (Antonie AJ) directing the respondents to replace the roof and windows to make the house fit for human occupation and granting leave to return urgently to court upon non‑compliance. When the applicants alleged that the repairs were inadequate and the house remained unsafe, the High Court (Dippenaar J) struck their urgent application from the roll for lack of urgency. The applicants sought leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court was granted; the appeal was upheld; the High Court order striking the matter from the roll was set aside; the first and fourth respondents were ordered to repair the roof within seven days in a manner that renders the house fit for human habitation; mechanisms involving inspection by the local municipality were put in place if disputes arose; costs related to municipal inspection were to be borne by the respondents; and the matter was remitted to the High Court for supervision of compliance.
The case reinforces that eviction- and housing-related disputes are inherently urgent and constitutionally laden, and that courts must avoid rigid reliance on procedural practice rules where severe rights violations are alleged. It affirms the Constitutional Court’s willingness to intervene directly to ensure effective relief, underscores the importance of dignity and children’s rights in housing cases, and strengthens the principle that court orders restoring housing must result in genuine habitability.