{"issue_text":"Whether children have an absolute, justiciable right to shelter under section 81(1)(f) of the Constitution that can be enforced against the State on demand","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"All facts regarding applicants' occupation and demand for shelter"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the State has a primary obligation to provide shelter to children who are in the care of their parents","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicants have living parents who care for them"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the respondents' threatened eviction of applicants is lawful","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicants occupy land without title; respondents have development rights"}
{"issue_text":"Whether applicants are entitled to an interdict against eviction","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Threatened eviction without alternative accommodation"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicants, an association of homeless people and members acting on behalf of their minor children, sought to enforce an alleged absolute right to shelter for children under section 81(1)(f) of the Constitution. They occupied Haydon Farm since 2000 but were threatened with eviction by respondents who had allocated the land for urban development. The court found that the right to shelter is not absolute and enforceable on demand, but subject to progressive realisation within available state resources.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases