Mrs Irene Grootboom and 899 other respondents (510 children and 390 adults) lived in appalling conditions in Wallacedene, an informal squatter settlement in Oostenberg Municipality within the Cape Metropolitan area. The settlement had no water, sewage, refuse removal services, and only 5% had electricity. Many residents had been on the waiting list for subsidised low-cost housing for up to seven years. In September 1998, the respondents moved onto privately owned vacant land earmarked for low-cost housing development, which they called "New Rust." They were evicted by court order in May 1999. The eviction was carried out a day early, and their possessions and building materials were destroyed and burnt. The respondents then took shelter on the Wallacedene sports field under makeshift structures. They applied to the High Court for an order requiring government to provide them with adequate basic shelter or housing until they obtained permanent accommodation.
The appeal was allowed in part. The High Court order was set aside. The Court declared that: (1) Section 26(2) requires the state to devise and implement within available resources a comprehensive and coordinated programme to progressively realise the right of access to adequate housing; (2) 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; (3) As at the date of the application, the state housing programme in the Cape Metropolitan Council area fell short of constitutional requirements in failing to make reasonable provision for people in crisis situations. The Human Rights Commission was tasked with monitoring the state's compliance. No order as to costs was made.
Grootboom is a landmark decision establishing the justiciability and content of socio-economic rights in South Africa. It is the first major Constitutional Court decision interpreting section 26 (right of access to adequate housing) and clarifying the state's positive obligations regarding socio-economic rights. The judgment established the "reasonableness review" standard for assessing whether the state has met its obligations under socio-economic rights provisions. This approach examines whether state measures are reasonable in conception and implementation, rather than adopting a minimum core approach. The Court emphasized that reasonableness requires programmes to be comprehensive, coherent, balanced, and inclusive - they cannot exclude vulnerable groups or those in desperate need. The judgment affirmed that socio-economic rights are justiciable and that courts have the constitutional mandate to enforce them, while respecting the separation of powers by focusing on the reasonableness of measures rather than prescribing specific policies. It also clarified the relationship between general socio-economic rights (sections 26, 27) and children's rights (section 28), establishing that children's rights must be read contextually and do not create separate, unqualified entitlements that override programmatic obligations. The case has been widely cited internationally and has influenced socio-economic rights jurisprudence beyond South Africa.