Search

In Daniels v Scribante (hereafter the Daniels case) the Constitutional Court had to decide whether: (a) the Extension of Security of Tenure Act 62 of 1997 (ESTA) afforded Ms Daniels the right to make improvements to her dwelling; (b) if consent from the person in charge, Mr Scribante, was a requirement for Ms Daniels to make such improvements; and (c) if consent was not a requirement, if Ms Daniels could effect improvements to the total disregard of Mr Scribante. The judgment in Daniels is important not only because it paved the way for Ms Daniels to effect improvements on her existing dwelling without the consent of Mr Scribante, but also because it showed that under section 8(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereafter the Constitution) on the application of the Bill of Rights Mr Scribante owed a positive obligation to Ms Daniels to ensure that she lived in conditions that afforded her human dignity. In Daniels the Constitutional Court indicated that private landowners were enjoined by section 25(6) of the Constitution through ESTA to accommodate ESTA occupiers on their land. According to the Constitutional Court in Daniels, the nature of the obligation imposed by section 25(6) of the Constitution was both negative and positive, and in this particular case it rested on Mr Scribante. Against this background, this case note provides at the outset the salient facts and judgment of the Daniels case. This is followed by an analysis aimed at critiquing the judgment in Daniels pertaining to what is expected of private landowners in the new constitutional dispensation. It is concluded that more may be required from the private landowner – a positive duty – to ensure that ESTA occupiers enjoy fundamental rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although South African courts have handed down progressive judgments concerning the right to access to adequate housing, they have failed failed to do so from a feminist point of view. The trajectory of housing jurisprudence emanated from a sequence of evictions that occurred in Cape Town and the Johannesburg inner city. This article provides an analysis of four pertinent cases, namely Grootboom, Olivia Road, Blue Moonlight and Dladla. A gendered perspective was absent from the arguments before the court and from the court's interrogation and analysis of matters that came before it. This failure was a shortcoming, given the harsh lived realities that affect women who experience eviction based on their race, gender and class. It is against the backdrop of the failures of Constitutional Court cases that lawyers use feminist litigation approaches and courts in housing adjudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]