Back to top
Zalari has raised $2 million USD in a founding round led by Nyamaropa Technologies
Supreme Court

Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation (2) Pesiwe Gonye (3) Thomas Kahoma (4) Innocent Kahoma (5) Victor Kahoma (6) Noreen Katsande (7) Trish Katumwa Katsande (8) Makatendeka Katsande v Minister of Local Government and National Housing (2) Zvimba Rural District Council (3) Leengate (Private) Limited (4) Minister of Lands, Land Reform and Resettlement

SC 94/2020

Case Details

Court
Supreme Court
Date
17 July 2020
Citation
SC 94/2020
Neutral Citation
[2020] ZWSC 94
Outcome
unknown
Case Type
Appeal

Bench

Presiding
Patel JA
Full Bench
Patel JAMavangira JAMathonsi JA
Areas of Law
Constitutional LawAdministrative LawHuman Rights Law
Keywords
Right to ShelterBest Interests of the ChildSection 74 ConstitutionSection 81 ConstitutionProgressive RealisationJusticiability
Tags
Housing RightsChildren's RightsArbitrary EvictionSocio-economic Rights
legislation
Statutes Cited
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
  • Constitution of Zimbabwe, 2013
ai analysis
Case Summary

Key Issues

  • {"issue_text":"Whether the right to shelter for children under s 81(1)(f) of the Constitution is justiciable and enforceable as an independent right","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellants seek protection for minor children from eviction"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the State has a primary obligation to provide shelter to children under parental care","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellants are indigent parents unable to provide adequate shelter"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of s 74 regarding protection against arbitrary eviction","issue_type":"constitutional","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Appellants face eviction without alternative accommodation"}
  • {"issue_text":"Whether the eviction of the appellants from Haydon Farm would be arbitrary and without due process","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Appellants were given notice to vacate but have no alternative housing"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case

Background

The appellants, a federation of homeless people and their minor children, settled on Haydon Farm in 2000, constructed permanent houses, and commenced farming. In 2005, the farm was acquired by the State and designated as urban land. The appellants' residential structures were demolished, and they now live in informal dwellings. They were given notice to vacate to enable a private developer to construct houses, but they have no alternative accommodation.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases
Open in Zalari →