| dc.date.accessioned | 2017-04-08T16:59:43Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2017-04-08T16:59:43Z | |
| dc.date.created | 2004-12-09 | en |
| dc.identifier.citation | [2000] ZACC 19 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 2000 (11) BCLR 1169 (CC) | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2107 | |
| dc.title | Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others | en |
| dc.title.alternative | CCT11/00 | en |
| dc.identifier.casenumber | CCT11/00 | en |
| dc.date.hearing | 11 May 2000 | |
| dc.contributor.judge | Yacoob J | |
| dc.date.judgment | 4 October 2000 | |
| dc.link.judgment | http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2107/Full%20judgment%20%28478%20Kb%29-2798.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y | |
| dc.concourt.synopsis | Appeal against the decision of the Cape Provincial Division (CPD) granting the respondent children and their parent's shelter on the basis of s 28 of the Constitution. The court (Yacoob J) considered both s 28 and s 26. There had been no infringement of s 28 since the primary obligation imposed by that section fell onto the child's immediate caregiver. Section 26 requires the State to put in place a reasonable programme for the progressive provision of adequate housing for all. This programme should comprise short, medium and long-term components. Appeal on the s 28 ruling allowed, but it was held that the State had failed to make provision in terms of the s 26 obligation to deal with people in crisis such as the applicants, and was ordered to devise and implement a programme that would do so. | |
| dc.concourt.casehistory | Appeal from a decision of the High Court in Grootboom v Oostenberg Municipality and Others 200 (3) BCLR 277 (CC) regarding the interpretation and application of ss 26 and 28 of the final Constitution, appeal upheld in part. |