City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties

The Constitutional Court held that a municipality seeking to evict unlawful occupiers under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE) may be required to provide temporary emergency accommodation where occupiers have no alternative shelter and eviction would render them homeless. The Court confirmed that constitutional obligations to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the right of access to adequate housing impose positive duties on municipalities in eviction proceedings, even where the municipality is not the cause of homelessness.

Blue Moonlight Properties owned an inner-city building in Johannesburg unlawfully occupied by approximately 81 adults and 46 children who had been residing there for several years. The City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality sought an eviction order under PIE, but the occupiers contended they would be rendered homeless if evicted without the provision of alternative accommodation by the municipality.

Whether a municipality may be required to provide temporary emergency accommodation to unlawful occupiers when granting an eviction order under PIE, and what constitutional obligations municipalities bear in relation to the right of access to adequate housing in eviction proceedings.

The Court held that municipalities can be obliged to provide temporary emergency accommodation to unlawful occupiers facing eviction where they would otherwise be rendered homeless, even where the municipality is not the landowner. Section 26(2) of the Constitution imposes positive obligations on all three spheres of government, including municipalities, to take reasonable legislative and other measures within their available resources to achieve the progressive realisation of the right of access to adequate housing.

When a court considers whether it is just and equitable to grant an eviction order under PIE, it must consider the constitutional obligations of municipalities under section 26 of the Constitution, which may require the provision of temporary emergency accommodation to prevent homelessness resulting from eviction.

The Court reasoned that the right of access to adequate housing in section 26 imposes obligations on all spheres of government, including local government. When eviction would render people homeless, courts must engage meaningfully with the question of alternative accommodation and may impose obligations on municipalities to provide temporary shelter as part of ensuring the eviction is just and equitable. The Court emphasised that these obligations must be determined contextually, taking into account available resources and the reasonableness of the measures adopted by the municipality.

The Court noted that municipalities should develop and implement programmes to provide emergency accommodation for those rendered homeless, and that courts should encourage creative solutions and meaningful engagement between parties before granting eviction orders.

This case is a foundational authority on the positive obligations of municipalities under the constitutional right of access to adequate housing, particularly in eviction proceedings. It demonstrates how constitutional socio-economic rights impose enforceable duties on local government and influences the interpretation of 'just and equitable' evictions under PIE, making it essential study for property law, constitutional law, and administrative law courses.

City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC) [2011] ZACC 33