Eviction - Right to housing - Making a Living - Right to dignity - Alternative accommodation
SERI represents 107 waste reclaimers in their opposition of an eviction from the property known as Randjiesfontein farm in Midrand, Johannesburg. The property is vacant undeveloped land located between a residential complex and a business park in Midrand, Johannesburg. The applicant is Rycloff-Beleggings (Pty) Ltd, the registered title-holder of the property. The occupiers are informal reclaimers who have been residing on the property for at least five years. In addition to living on the property, the space has enabled them to eke out a living by sorting and storing their recyclable materials on site.
The reclaimers contend that an eviction, without the provision of alternative accommodation, would render them homeless and without the ability to make a decent living and that the location of the alternative accommodation provided by the municipality should be where they are able sort and store their recyclable materials and within reach to medium income households who produce high value waste. The occupiers’ eviction from the property will affect numerous constitutional rights as they will not only be rendered homeless but will also lose their source of income. The occupiers argue that allowing for an eviction order in the absence of the provision of alternative accommodation suitable for the reclaimers’ work, amounts to a violation of a range of their constitutionally and internationally protected human rights. In identifying an alternative accommodation site the municipality should take into consideration the need of the reclaimers to sort and store their recyclable materials.
On 4 October 2022, the High Court handed down its judgment in the matter. The High Court ordered the City to provide the reclaimers with temporary emergency accommodation which allows for the reclaimers to live and sort their reclaimed waste.
The High Court found that relocating the reclaimers to a place where they cannot earn a basic living as they presently do, would leave them at a risk of not being able to maintain their dignity and care for their children. The Court also found held that while all the parties’ rights are important, it would be unfair and therefore unconstitutional to uphold the other parties’ rights while the reclaimers go hungry. Furthermore, the rights of children are paramount in cases involving children such as the present one.
The City of Johannesburg approached the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) to appeal the matter, which was heard on 27 August 2024. The City submitted that the High Court's order amounts to "an undue overreaching extension of the obligations of the State in providing Emergency Temporary Accommodation to unlawful occupiers". It further submitted that this is because the reclaimers' commercial interests are not relevant for the court's consideration in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (“PIE Act”); and that the rights of children, under section 28 of the Constitution, are also not relevant for consideration under the PIE Act.
The SCA handed down its judgment on 23 April 2025, finding in favour of the waste reclaimers, finding that the ability to make a living is among the factors for consideration when providing temporary emergency accommodation. The municipality was then given 60 days to provide the residents with alternative accommodation. This important victory affirms and clarifies that the obligation on the City to provide temporary emergency accommodation to reclaimers must take into consideration the rights of reclaimers to work as they sort and store what they reclaimed, where they live.
Proceedings in the Supreme Court of Appeal:
- Supreme Court of Appeal judgment (23 April 2025) here.
- Occupiers' Heads of Argument (12 February 2024) here.
- Second respondent's Heads of Argument (12 February 2024) here.
Review application documents: