Government of the RSA v Grootboom

The Constitutional Court held that the state's housing programme failed to meet its obligations under section 26 of the Constitution because it made no provision for people in desperate need with no access to land, shelter or basic services. The Court developed the reasonableness standard for reviewing the state's compliance with socio-economic rights, requiring programmes to be comprehensive, coherent, and include measures to respond to those in most urgent need.

Mrs Grootboom and approximately 900 adults and children were evicted from informal settlements on private land they had occupied and moved to a sports field with no facilities. They applied for an order requiring the state to provide them with adequate basic shelter or housing until they obtained permanent accommodation, arguing their constitutional right of access to adequate housing under section 26.

Whether the state's housing programme violated the obligation to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of the right of access to adequate housing under section 26 of the Constitution.

The housing programme fell short of constitutional obligations because it failed to provide for relief to those in desperate need with no access to land, shelter or basic services. The state was ordered to devise and implement a programme including reasonable measures to provide relief for people in the respondents' situation within available resources.

The state's duty to progressively realise socio-economic rights requires reasonable measures that are comprehensive, coherent, balanced, flexible, and include provision for short-term relief to those in desperate need, not only long-term progressive programmes.

The Court rejected a minimum core approach in favour of reasonableness review, holding that reasonableness must be determined contextually considering all relevant factors including the degree of need. A programme that excludes a significant segment of society, particularly those most vulnerable and in crisis, cannot be regarded as reasonable. The state cannot meet its obligations under section 26 by adopting measures directed only at medium and long-term needs while ignoring immediate crises.

The Court noted that section 26(1) does not entitle anyone to claim shelter or housing immediately upon demand, distinguishing it from an individually enforceable right to housing on demand.

Grootboom is the foundational case establishing how South African courts review state compliance with socio-economic rights in sections 26 and 27, introducing the reasonableness standard and requiring attention to the most vulnerable. It remains central to constitutional litigation on social and economic justice.

Government of the RSA v Grootboom 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) [2000] ZACC 19