CCT12/12

[2012] ZACC 9

2012 (9) BCLR 951 (CC)

Froneman J

24 May 2012

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/3670

CC hands down reasons for the order made on 30 March 2012, when it heard and dismissed an application by the occupiers of premises in Saratoga Avenue, Johannesburg. The occupiers' application sought to vary an order made by the Court in City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another [2011] ZACC 33; 2012 (2) SA 104 (CC); 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC). See also earlier SCA judgment: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another 2011 (4) SA 337 (SCA)

Urgent application for compliance with, or variation, of the order this Court granted in City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another [2011] ZACC 33 (Order). In the Order, this Court declared the City of Johannesburg’s housing policy unconstitutional and ordered that the City provide temporary accommodation to those occupiers whose names appeared in a survey on or before 1 April 2012. The occupiers were ordered to vacate the premises by no later than 15 April 2012. This application was to require the City to provide temporary accommodation to a wider group of people than those on the survey, and for a postponement of the eviction date. Further, the occupiers alleged that the City would not be able to comply with the original order and had not meaningfully engaged with the occupiers in relation to the temporary accommodation. The Court handed down an order dismissing the application, and later gave reasons. It held that it was the inappropriate forum to bring the application, which should have been brought in the High Court. It held further that no case of non-compliance or for variation was made out. Finally, the Court held that it was not necessary to make a finding whether meaningful engagement was a substantive requirement, since, on the papers, the occupiers would not be rendered homeless. Hence the application was dismissed. Judgment: Froneman J (unanimous).