Mrs Irene Grootboom and 899 other respondents (510 children and 390 adults) lived in appalling conditions in an informal squatter settlement called Wallacedene in the Oostenberg Municipality, Cape Metropolitan area. About a quarter of households had no income, and more than two-thirds earned less than R500 per month. They had no water, sewage, refuse removal, and only 5% had electricity. Many had been on a waiting list for subsidized low-cost housing for up to seven years. Facing indefinite intolerable conditions, the respondents moved in September 1998 onto privately owned vacant land (called "New Rust") earmarked for formal low-cost housing development. They occupied the land without consent. The landowner obtained an eviction order in December 1998. On 18 May 1999, during winter, the respondents were forcibly evicted at the municipality's expense; their shacks were bulldozed and burnt, and possessions destroyed. They sheltered on the Wallacedene sports field under temporary structures. When winter rains began, they brought an urgent application to the Cape High Court on 31 May 1999 for an order requiring government to provide adequate basic shelter or housing until they obtained permanent accommodation.
The appeal was allowed in part. The Cape High Court order was set aside. The Constitutional Court declared that: (a) Section 26(2) requires the state to devise and implement within available resources a comprehensive and coordinated programme progressively to realize 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 launch of the application, the state housing programme in the Cape Metropolitan area failed to comply with these requirements. The Human Rights Commission was to monitor and report on the state's compliance with its section 26 obligations. There was no order as to costs.
Grootboom is a landmark decision in South African constitutional law and globally significant in the jurisprudence of socio-economic rights. It established that socio-economic rights are justiciable and enforceable. The judgment set out the test for evaluating whether the state has fulfilled its obligations under section 26: whether the legislative and other measures adopted are reasonable. Reasonableness requires a comprehensive, coherent, coordinated programme that is balanced and flexible, responds to short, medium and long-term needs, makes provision for those in desperate need, and is implemented with regard to human dignity. The judgment clarified that section 26 creates an obligation of progressive realization within available resources, not an obligation to provide housing on demand. It rejected the application of a rigid minimum core obligation approach in South African law, while recognizing that a reasonable programme cannot ignore those most desperately in need. The case illustrates the court's approach to enforcing socio-economic rights through declaratory orders and monitoring mechanisms, respecting separation of powers while holding government accountable. It remains the foundational case on the right to housing and the interpretation of socio-economic rights in South Africa.