## Facts

- Irene Grootboom and other respondents (about 390 adults and 510 children) lived in severe poverty in Wallacedene, an informal settlement in the Western Cape, in overcrowded and unsafe conditions while on long waiting lists for low‑cost housing.
- Frustrated by the lack of progress, they moved to and occupied nearby privately owned land (New Rust) that was earmarked for formal low‑cost housing development.
- The landowner obtained an eviction order, and the occupiers were evicted; their makeshift structures were demolished and their possessions were lost or destroyed.
- After the eviction, the respondents had no access to land and no shelter and stayed on a municipal sports field with minimal protection from the elements and limited services.
- The respondents applied to the Cape of Good Hope High Court for an order compelling national, provincial, and local government bodies to provide “adequate basic shelter or housing” until permanent accommodation was available.
- The High Court granted relief primarily under section 28(1)(c) (children’s right to shelter), holding that the state had to provide rudimentary shelter to children and their parents on demand, independent of resource limits.
- The Government of the Republic of South Africa, the Premier of the Western Cape, the Cape Metropolitan Council, and the Oostenberg Municipality appealed to the Constitutional Court.

## Issues

1. Whether section 28(1)(c) of the Constitution creates an immediate and unqualified duty on the state to provide shelter to children (and through them their parents) whenever parents cannot do so.
2. Whether the state’s measures to realise section 26 (the right of access to adequate housing) were “reasonable,” within available resources, given the absence of relief for people in desperate need.
3. What form of judicial review applies to alleged failures to meet socio‑economic rights obligations under sections 26 and 28.

## Decision

- The Constitutional Court allowed the appeal in part and set aside the High Court’s section 28(1)(c) order.
- The Court held that section 28(1)(c) did not impose a direct, immediate, and resource‑independent duty on the state to provide shelter on demand to children and their parents.
- The Court found that the state nonetheless breached section 26 because the housing programme, although aimed at long‑term housing delivery, failed to include reasonable measures for those in crisis situations who lacked any shelter.
- The Court ordered the state to devise, fund, and implement, within available resources, a coordinated housing programme that included reasonable measures to provide temporary relief for people in desperate need.

## Legal Principles

- Section 26 does not grant an immediate entitlement to housing on demand; it requires the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within available resources, to achieve progressive realisation of access to adequate housing.
- “Reasonableness” is the standard for reviewing compliance with section 26(2): a programme must be reasonable both in its design and in its implementation.
- A housing programme is unreasonable if it leaves out meaningful provision for people facing emergencies—those with no access to land, no roof over their heads, and living in intolerable conditions—especially where their situation will not be resolved in the near term by ordinary housing delivery.
- Courts may consider the idea of a minimum essential level of protection, but this case applied reasonableness review rather than declaring a free‑standing “minimum core” content on the record before it.
- Section 28(1)(c) must be read with the structure of children’s rights: primary responsibility for a child’s basic needs lies with parents or family, while the state’s direct duty to provide care and shelter arises when parental or family care is lacking (for example, where children are removed from the family environment or have no family care).
- Remedies for socio‑economic rights violations may focus on requiring the state to correct defects in programmes, rather than ordering a particular benefit for each claimant, provided the relief is effective and addresses the category of urgent need revealed by the case.

## Conclusion

The Constitutional Court rejected an interpretation of children’s shelter rights that would have required the state to provide shelter to children and their parents on demand regardless of resources, but it held that the state violated section 26 because its housing programme failed to include reasonable measures for people in immediate crisis and ordered government to implement a programme that provides temporary relief for those in desperate need within available resources.


Gov’t of the Republic of S. Afr. v. Grootboom, [2000] ZACC 19, 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).