|Department:||Faculty of Law|
|Keywords:||Forced Evictions; Just and Equitable; Homelessness; Housing Rights; Property Rights|
|Full text PDF:||http://N/A|
In this study, the researcher demystifies the stark conflict that exists between two constitutional rights, namely; the right to property (section 25) and the right of access to adequate housing (section 26). The conflict stems mainly from the apartheid system where forced and illegal evictions were so rampant and normatively institutionalised. However, with the advent of democracy, a great deal of transformative commitment ensued. Be that as it may, this mini-dissertation argues that an alarming number of reported illegal evictions in South Africa is so severe to an extent that it thwart and poses a serious threat towards a smooth course of transformation, let alone constitutional democracy. In essence, the conflict comes into fore in the following sense. On the one hand, section 25 guarantees everyone a right to property, which further entails that no one shall arbitrarily be deprived of ownership rights over a certain object/property rightfully belonging to him/her. In other words, the rightful owner of a property is protected from an unlawful interference with his/her ownership rights by either a third party (in this context, an illegal occupant) or the state. On the other, section 26 affords everyone a right of access to adequate housing, which seeks to guard against homelessness and possibly degradation of human dignity. In practice, these two rights are often invoked simultaneously in eviction cases, where the owner of the unlawfully occupied property would rely on section 25, whilst the illegal occupant facing eviction order would rely on section 26.