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

Mrs Irene Grootboom and 899 other adults and children lived in appalling conditions in the Wallacedene informal settlement in the Oostenberg Municipality, Cape Metro. A quarter of households had no income; most lived in shacks with no water, sewage, or electricity. Many had been on the housing waiting list for up to seven years. In September 1998, the respondents moved onto vacant private land earmarked for low-cost housing (called "New Rust") without the owner's consent. In December 1998, an eviction order was granted. On 18 May 1999, they were forcibly evicted; their shacks were bulldozed and burnt, and possessions destroyed. They took shelter on the Wallacedene sports field under plastic sheeting during the Cape winter. The respondents applied to the Cape High Court for an order requiring government to provide adequate basic shelter or housing. The High Court granted relief based on section 28(1)(c) (children's right to shelter), ordering the state to provide shelter to the children and their parents.

• Whether socio-economic rights in the Constitution are justiciable and enforceable
• The proper interpretation and scope of section 26 (the right of access to adequate housing)
• Whether section 26 imposes an obligation on the state to provide a 'minimum core' of housing immediately
• What constitutes 'reasonable legislative and other measures' within the state's 'available resources' to achieve 'progressive realisation' of the right to housing
• Whether the state's housing programme at the time met its constitutional obligations under section 26
• The interpretation of section 28(1)(c) concerning children's right to shelter
• Whether section 28(1)(c) creates an independent and direct obligation on the state to provide shelter to children and their parents on demand
• Whether the conduct of state authorities toward the respondents was constitutionally compliant

The appeal was allowed in part. The order of the Cape High Court was set aside. The Constitutional Court made a declaratory order that: (a) Section 26(2) requires the state to devise and implement a comprehensive and coordinated programme to progressively realise the right of access to adequate housing; (b) The programme must include reasonable measures to provide relief for people with no access to land, no roof over their heads, and living in intolerable conditions or crisis situations; (c) As at the date of the application, the state housing programme in the Cape Metropolitan area fell short of constitutional requirements because it failed to make reasonable provision for people in crisis situations. The Human Rights Commission was to monitor compliance. There was no order as to costs.

Section 26(2) of the Constitution requires the state to devise and implement, within its available resources, a comprehensive and coordinated programme to progressively realise the right of access to adequate housing. The test is whether the legislative and other measures adopted by the state are reasonable. A reasonable programme must be balanced and flexible, make appropriate provision for housing crises and for short, medium and long-term needs, be capable of facilitating the realisation of the right, and be reasonably implemented. A programme that excludes a significant segment of society, particularly those whose needs are most urgent, cannot be reasonable. The state's housing programme must include reasonable measures to provide relief for people who have no access to land, no roof over their heads, and who are living in intolerable conditions or crisis situations. Section 28(1)(c) does not create an independent obligation on the state to provide shelter to children and their parents on demand; the primary obligation rests with parents and families, with the state's obligation arising when children lack family care.

The Court made several important observations: (1) The concept of 'minimum core obligation' developed in international law could not be applied without sufficient information about needs and resources in the South African context; it was unnecessary to decide whether courts should determine minimum core content in the first instance. (2) Human dignity is fundamental to evaluating reasonableness of state action - human beings must be treated as human beings. (3) The judgment should not be understood as approving land invasions to coerce preferential housing provision; such invasions are inimical to systematic planned housing delivery. (4) The state's conduct toward the respondents, particularly the manner of eviction (destroying possessions, acting prematurely and inhumanely), may have breached constitutional obligations, the Prevention of Illegal Eviction Act, and the Housing Act, though these issues were not fully argued. (5) In appropriate circumstances, courts can and must enforce socio-economic rights obligations. (6) The intolerable conditions created by apartheid's legacy of spatial planning and influx control form the essential context for understanding housing rights.

Grootboom is a landmark case in South African constitutional law and globally significant for socio-economic rights jurisprudence. It confirmed that socio-economic rights are justiciable and enforceable through the courts. The judgment established the test for evaluating state compliance with socio-economic rights: courts must assess whether legislative and other measures are 'reasonable' in their conception and implementation. Reasonableness requires a comprehensive, coherent, coordinated programme that is balanced and flexible, makes provision for short, medium and long-term needs, and does not exclude a significant segment of society. Crucially, the Court held that a programme that ignores those in desperate need cannot be reasonable, even if statistically successful. The judgment rejected automatic adoption of the international law 'minimum core' approach, instead developing a distinctly South African reasonableness standard. It clarified the relationship between different socio-economic rights provisions and emphasized that rights are interrelated and must be interpreted with regard to human dignity. The case has been extensively cited in subsequent socio-economic rights cases in South Africa and internationally, shaping the constitutional approach to state obligations concerning poverty and basic needs.