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

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.

• Whether the state's housing programme complied with its constitutional obligations under section 26(2) of the Constitution
• Whether section 26 includes a minimum core obligation requiring the state to provide basic shelter on demand
• Whether children have an independent and direct right to shelter under section 28(1)(c) that obliges the state to provide shelter on demand to children and their parents
• The meaning and scope of 'reasonable legislative and other measures' under section 26(2)
• Whether the state's housing programme made adequate provision for people in desperate need or crisis situations

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.

The binding legal principles established are: (1) Section 26(2) obliges the state to devise and implement, within available resources, a comprehensive and coordinated programme designed to progressively realise the right of access to adequate housing; (2) The reasonableness of state measures must be assessed both in terms of their conception and their implementation - legislation alone is insufficient without appropriate policies and programmes; (3) A reasonable housing programme must be balanced, flexible, comprehensive, and make appropriate provision for short, medium and long-term needs, including provision for those in crisis situations or desperate need; (4) A programme that excludes a significant segment of society, particularly the most vulnerable and desperate, cannot be regarded as reasonable; (5) Reasonableness must be understood in the context of the Bill of Rights as a whole, with particular regard to human dignity - the state must treat people as human beings; (6) The obligation to take measures is not absolute but is qualified by available resources and progressive realisation; however, this does not deprive the obligation of meaningful content; (7) Section 28(1)(c) does not create an independent, unqualified right for children and their parents to demand shelter from the state - it must be read with section 28(1)(b), placing primary responsibility on parents/families, with state obligations arising where parental care is absent; (8) The Court will not adopt a minimum core approach to socio-economic rights without sufficient information to determine what that minimum core comprises in the South African context.

The Court made several important non-binding observations: (1) On the apartheid legacy: The Court described how influx control policies, particularly the coloured labour preference policy in the Western Cape, created the acute housing shortage, noting that the freeze on African family housing from 1962 and the cycle of land invasions, forced removals and harassment were central features of apartheid that created current conditions; (2) On international law: While section 39 requires consideration of international law, the weight attached to international principles varies, and the Court noted significant differences between the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and section 26 (right to "adequate housing" versus "access to adequate housing"; "appropriate steps" versus "reasonable measures"); (3) On land invasions: The Court emphasized that land invasions cannot be tolerated as they undermine systematic housing provision, and stated that it would be reasonable for the state not to provide preferential housing to land invaders, though reasonableness must be determined on the facts of each case; (4) On evictions: The Court commented that the eviction of the respondents was "reminiscent of the past and inconsistent with the values of the Constitution" and suggested (without deciding) that the municipality may have breached the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act and sections of the Housing Act; (5) On the definition of housing: The Court observed that housing entails more than bricks and mortar - it requires available land, appropriate services (water, sewage removal), and financing, and that "access to adequate housing" recognizes that individuals and other agents in society, not only the state, have responsibility for housing provision; (6) On cooperative governance: The Court emphasized the importance of cooperation between the three spheres of government (national, provincial, local) in fulfilling housing obligations, with national government bearing ultimate responsibility for ensuring compliance with section 26 obligations.

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.