Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom was a 2000 decision of the Constitutional Court of South Africa holding that the state's constitutional duty to progressively realize the right of access to adequate housing required a reasonable program that made some provision for people in desperate need, and that a housing program with no provision at all for those with no access to land or shelter and living in intolerable conditions was not reasonable. It was the first case in which the Constitutional Court gave concrete legal content to the Constitution's socioeconomic rights, and it became a foundational precedent for how courts elsewhere assess the reasonableness of state programs implementing such rights.
Facts
Decision Year Decision Date HoldingSection 26(2) of the Constitution of South Africa required the state to act reasonably, through a comprehensive and coordinated program within its available resources, to progressively realize the right of access to adequate housing, including provision for people in desperate need with no access to land or shelter; the national housing program then in force, which made no provision for such people, did not meet this reasonableness standard. 1 Current StatusNot overruled; the reasonableness standard for assessing state compliance with the right of access to adequate housing under section 26(2) that this judgment established remains the applicable test in South African socio-economic rights litigation, while the Cape Provincial Division's order in Grootboom v Oostenberg Municipality was reversed in part by this judgment. 1 Case Status
Case Status (category)Overruled (in whole or part) 1 FAQs
What did the Constitutional Court decide in Grootboom?
The state must have a reasonable housing program that includes people in desperate need.
In 2000 the Constitutional Court of South Africa held that section 26(2) of the Constitution required the state to act reasonably, through a comprehensive and coordinated program within its available resources, to progressively realize the right of access to adequate housing, including provision for people in desperate need with no access to land or shelter.
Why did the national housing program fail the reasonableness test in Grootboom?
It made no provision for people in desperate need.
The national housing program then in force made no provision at all for people with no access to land or shelter and living in intolerable conditions, so it did not meet the reasonableness standard. The Cape Provincial Division's order in Grootboom v Oostenberg Municipality was reversed in part.
Connections
Decided By
Decided by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, 2000.
In Legal System
Matches the existing S v Makwanyane precedent for South African Constitutional Court rulings on this atlas.
In the Other Atlases
Found In
Also in Geography Atlas: where this subject is found.
Sources
1. Government of the Republic of South Africa v Grootboom (Wikipedia)
- Infobox: date decided = 4 October 2000
- Lead paragraph, heard 11 May 2000
Judgment section, final paragraph on the Oostenberg reversal
The decision in the Cape Provincial Division in Grootboom v Oostenberg Municipality was thus reversed in part.
Judgment section, reasonableness standard sentence
The real question in terms of the Constitution was whether the measures taken by the state to realise the right were reasonable.
In Group: Liberty, Emergency Powers and Social Rights Cases, Lead paragraph
Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others is an important case in South African law, heard in the Constitutional Court on 11 May 2000, with judgment handed down on 4 October.
View the SourceReader Challenges (0)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.