The Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others

The respondents, led by Irene Grootboom, were approximately 900 adults and children who lived in appalling conditions in an informal settlement known as Wallacedene in the Western Cape. After waiting for years on a municipal housing list with no prospect of imminent relief, they occupied nearby private land earmarked for low-cost housing. They were evicted pursuant to a magistrates’ court order and their informal homes were demolished, leaving them homeless at the onset of winter. With no alternative accommodation provided, they sought relief in the High Court, claiming that the state had failed to meet its constitutional obligations to provide access to adequate housing (section 26 of the Constitution) and, in respect of children, the right to shelter (section 28(1)(c)).

The appeal succeeded in part. The Constitutional Court set aside the High Court order based on section 28 but declared that the state had breached section 26(2) of the Constitution. The Court ordered the state to devise, fund, implement and supervise a comprehensive and coordinated programme to provide relief for people in desperate need of housing, including temporary or emergency accommodation.

This is a foundational case on socio-economic rights in South Africa. It established the reasonableness standard as the primary test for assessing state compliance with socio-economic rights and confirmed that courts can review government policy without dictating detailed outcomes. The case clarified the relationship between sections 26 and 28 and shaped later jurisprudence on housing, dignity, and state obligations toward vulnerable groups.