Nokotyana and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others

Residents of the Harry Gwala Informal Settlement, represented by Mr Johnson Matotoba Nokotyana, occupied land in Ekurhuleni and lived without adequate basic services. The Municipality proposed upgrading the settlement to a formal township under Chapter 13 of the National Housing Code, but no final decision had been taken for several years. Pending that decision, residents sought interim basic services, particularly temporary sanitation and high‑mast lighting. The Municipality offered one chemical toilet per ten households and refused high‑mast lighting, citing policy and resource constraints. The applicants approached the South Gauteng High Court relying on sections 26 and 27 of the Constitution and the National Housing Code. The High Court ordered provision of water taps and refuse removal but refused to order temporary sanitation and lighting. The applicants then sought leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed. The High Court’s order stood, and the Municipality was not ordered to provide temporary sanitation facilities or high‑mast lighting beyond what it had already undertaken.

The case reaffirmed the Constitutional Court’s approach to socio‑economic rights: rejecting minimum core claims and emphasising reasonableness review, separation of powers, and deference to executive policy choices within resource constraints. It clarified the limited scope of Chapters 12 and 13 of the National Housing Code and reinforced procedural discipline regarding new evidence on appeal.