An important general principle from court decisions concerns the role of municipal government in situations where an eviction will make poor people homeless and the need to make alternative accommodation available.

In the case of Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg and others in February 2008, the Constitutional Court found that while the municipality may not necessarily be able to find suitable alternative accommodation for evictees of council property it must make a good faith attempt to do so. The court stated in such cases that municipalities must at least “meaningfully engage” with the residents being evicted. Municipalities must, therefore, work closely with such residents, determine what their housing needs are, and make every attempt within their available resources to prevent the residents from becoming homeless.

In February 2010, the Constitutional Court also ruled that a municipal housing policy which provided temporary accommodation only for those evicted from unsafe buildings owned by the municipality itself, was unconstitutional. This was because such a policy excluded tenants evicted from unsafe privately owned buildings from consideration for emergency accommodation. Municipal housing policy concerning temporary accommodation for tenants evicted from unsafe buildings must also therefore, cover tenants renting privately.

In December 2011 the Constitutional Court ruled that the City of Johannesburg was obliged to provide temporary emergency accommodation to the occupiers of a privately-owned building who were being lawfully evicted and who would consequently become homeless. The Court rejected the City’s argument that the National Housing Code did not oblige the City to fund emergency accommodation and ruled the City’s housing policy was inconsistent with the City’s housing obligation. It was not reasonable, the Court said, for the City to provide temporary accommodation to people relocated by it from hazardous buildings and not to people who would be made homeless through a lawful of eviction by a private owner. The Court rejected the City’s claim that it did not have the necessary funds to provide accommodation for the occupiers, and ruled that the City had incorrectly budgeted based on the belief that it was not obliged to provide them with temporary emergency housing. The important precedent set in this case is that when very poor residents are lawfully evicted, through no fault of their own, and such eviction is likely to make them homeless, the government must intervene and at least provide them with temporary emergency accommodation. (See Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act [PIE])