Automated Summary
Key Facts
The Constitutional Court of South Africa ruled that the Ekuthuleni Shelter's rules requiring residents to leave during daylight hours and prohibiting opposite-sex partners from living together in communal rooms unconstitutionally infringed on the applicants' rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy under sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Constitution. The applicants, evicted under the Blue Moonlight case, were provided temporary accommodation at the shelter, but the court found the rules violated their constitutional rights and ordered their enforcement to cease.
Issues
- Whether the lockout and family separation rules at the Ekuthuleni Shelter infringe on the applicants' constitutional rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy under sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Constitution, and whether such infringement is justified under section 36(1).
- Whether the City of Johannesburg and Metropolitan Evangelical Services' refusal to allow cohabitation of opposite-sex partners in communal rooms at the Shelter constitutes an unconstitutional infringement of the applicants' rights to dignity and privacy under sections 10 and 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the City's provision of temporary accommodation to the applicants at the Shelter, under the Blue Moonlight court order, complies with its constitutional obligations under section 26(2) to take reasonable measures for progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing.
Holdings
- The court directed the City of Johannesburg and Metropolitan Evangelical Services to permit applicants to reside with their opposite-sex partners in communal rooms during their stay at Ekuthuleni.
- The court interdicted the City of Johannesburg and Metropolitan Evangelical Services from enforcing rules 3 and 4 of the Shelter House Rules against the applicants during their stay.
- The refusal to allow opposite-sex partners to reside together in communal rooms at the Shelter was declared an infringement of the applicants' rights to dignity and privacy under sections 10 and 14 of the Constitution.
- The application of rules 3 and 4 of the Ekuthuleni Overnight/Decant Shelter House Rules was declared to infringe the applicants' rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy under sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Constitution.
Remedies
- 4. The City of Johannesburg is ordered to pay the applicants' costs including the costs of two counsel in this Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, and the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg.
- 3(d) The City and MES are directed to permit those applicants who wish to do so to reside together with their partners of opposite sexes in communal rooms at Ekuthuleni for the duration of their stay.
- 2. The appeal is upheld.
- 3(a) It is declared that the application of rules 3 and 4 of the Shelter rules constitutes an infringement of the applicants' rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy in sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Constitution.
- 1. Leave to appeal is granted.
- 3(b) The City of Johannesburg and Metropolitan Evangelical Services are interdicted and restrained from enforcing rules 3 and 4 of the Shelter rules as against the applicants for the duration of their stay at the Shelter.
- 3(c) It is declared that the City and MES' refusal to allow the applicants to reside in communal rooms together with their partners of opposite sexes is an infringement of the applicants' constitutional rights to dignity and privacy in sections 10 and 14.
Legal Principles
The court applied judicial review principles to assess the constitutionality of the Shelter rules, focusing on reasonableness and proportionality under the Bill of Rights. The rules were found to infringe on sections 10, 12, and 14 of the Constitution (dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy) and were not justified under section 36(1) due to lack of a 'law of general application'.
Precedent Name
- Minister of Health v Treatment Action Campaign (No 2)
- Mazibuko v City of Johannesburg
- Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes
- Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom
- Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd
Cited Statute
- Constitution of South Africa
- Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act
Judge Name
- Cameron J
- Khampepe J
- Madlanga J
- Mogoeng CJ
- Jafta J
- Mojapelo AJ
- Zondo J
- Pretorius AJ
- Nkabinde ADCJ
- Mhlantla J
- Froneman J
Passage Text
- It is declared that the application of rules 3 and 4 of the Ekuthuleni Overnight/Decant Shelter House Rules constitutes an infringement of the applicants' rights to dignity, freedom and security of the person, and privacy in sections 10, 12 and 14 of the Constitution.
- The lockout rule destroys their ability to avail themselves of such solitude. One would think that people who have been evicted from their homes in which they had some privacy would be provided a substitute with a measure of the same.
- The City's argument that the Shelter does not constitute a home in the everyday, colloquial sense of the term does not mean that the applicants are not entitled to the protection of their fundamental constitutional rights.