THE EVOLVING CONCEPTUALISATION OF MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT IN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS
Abstract
The Constitutional Court of South Africa has unequivocally affirmed its commitment to meaningful engagement during eviction proceedings, as evident in the case of Charnell Commando and Others v City of Cape Town and Another 2025 (3) SA 1 (CC). The jurisprudential doctrine of meaningful engagement was first introduced in Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC). Meaningful engagement during evictions encompasses both procedural and substantive safeguards for unlawful occupiers, aiming to protect the unlawful occupiers against arbitrary evictions and to uphold their dignity to prevent a repeat of inhumane apartheid-style evictions. However, the application of this doctrine has been marred by conceptual ambiguities and inconsistencies, potentially compromising the interests of vulnerable unlawful occupiers. Through an analytic doctrinal approach, this article examines relevant eviction judgments since the Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road case in 2008 and organises them into three conceptual approaches, which are transformative conceptualisation, regressive conceptualisation, and revived transformative conceptualisation. This article argues that an adjudicative emphasis on substantive safeguards of meaningful engagement is transformative and necessary for the protection of unlawful occupiers against arbitrary evictions reminiscent of apartheid-style evictions. This article is necessary as the right against arbitrary evictions is the most litigated socio-economic right in South Africa and therefore, critical evaluation of the eviction jurisprudence is essential as we approach a significant milestone of the 30 years of the democratic constitution.
Downloads
References
2. Chenwi L & Tissington K Engaging meaningfully with government on socio-economic rights: A focus on the right to housing University of the Western Cape: SERI (2010)
3. Jagwanth S and Soltan F A review of South Africa’s Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations System: An African perspective on Fiscal Decentralisation Paper for FFC (2014)
4. Liebenburg S Socio-economic rights: Adjudication under transformative constitution Claremont: Juta (2010)
5. Munakanwe J & Luthango S Dispossession and evictions in post-apartheid South Africa: Three decades into the democratic transition, land rights remain a highly contested good Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung (2024)
6. Roux T The politics of principle: The first South African Constitutional Court, 1995-2005 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2013)
7. Tushnet M Weak Courts, Strong Rights: Judicial Review and Social Welfare Rights in Comparative Constitutional Law Princeton: Princeton University Press (2008)
8. van Staden M Colonialism and apartheid stripped black South Africans of land and labour rights The Conversations (2024). htts://the conversations.com/colonialism-and-apartheid-stripped-black-south-africans-of-land-and-labour-rights-the-effects-still-felt-today-238243 (accessed 22 May 2025)
9. Chapters in books
10. Liebenberg S & Young G “Adjudicating social and economic rights: can democratic experimentalism help?” in Aliviar-Garcia H, Klare K & Williams LA (eds) Socio-economic rights in Theory and practice: Critical Enquiries London: Routledge (2014)
11. Journal articles
12. Chenwi L “A New approach to remedies in socio-economic rights adjudication: Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road v City of Johannesburg and Others” (2009) 2 Constitutional Court Review 371-399
13. Kollapen J “Realising socio-economic rights in an unequal society” (2024) 1 Stellenbosch Law Review at 1-20.
14. Madjiedt S “Dreams and aspirations deferred? The Constitutional Court’s approach to the fulfilment of socio-economic rights in the constitution” (2022) 26 Law, Democracy and Development 1-37.
15. Muller G “Conceptualising meaningful engagement as a deliberative democratic partnership” (2011) 22 Stellenbosch Law Review 742-758
16. Ray B “Engagement possibilities and limits as a socio-economic rights remedy” (2010) 9(3) Washington University Global Studies Law Review 399-427
17. Tushnet MV “Social welfare and the forms of judicial review” (2004) 82 Texas Law Review 1895-2019
18. Legislation
19. Prevention of Illegal Evictions from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998
20. Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 104 of 1951
21. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, Act 108 of 1996
22. Black Land Act 35 of 1913
23. Health Act 63 of 1977
24. KwaZulu-Natal Elimination and Prevention of Re-Emergence of Slums Act
25. Physical Planning Act 88 of 1967
26. Promotion of Administrative Justice Act 3 of 2000
27. Slums Act 53 of 1934
28. Trespass Act 6 of 1959
29. Treaties and Conventions
30. 1991: UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “General Comment No. 4: The Right to Adequate Housing [Art.11(1) of the Covenant]” 13 December 1991 Res E/1992/23 (1991).
31. 1993: UNCHR Resolution 1993/77 “Forced Evictions” adopted on 10 March 1993 UN Doc.E/CN.4/.RES/1993/77.
32. 1998: UN Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, “General Comment No.7: The Right to Adequate Housing [Art. 11.1]: Forced Evictions” 20 May 1997 Res E/1998/22.
33. Case law
34. Abahlali BaseMjondolo Movement SA and another v Premier of KwaZulu-Natal and Others 2010 (2) BCLR 99 (CC)
35. Charnell Commando and Others v City of Cape Town and Another 2025 (3) BCLR 243 (CC).
36. City of Johannesburg Municipality v Blue Moonlight Properties 39 (Pty) Ltd and Another 2012 (2) BCLR 150 (CC)
37. City of Johannesburg v Rand Properties (2007) (1) SA 78 (W).
38. City of Johannesburg v Rand Properties (2007) (6) SA 417 (SCA).
39. Maledu and Others v Itereleng Bakgatla Mineral Resources 2019 (1) BCLR 53 (CC)
40. Occupiers of 51 Olivia Road, Berea Township and 197 Main Street, Johannesburg v City of Johannesburg 2008 (3) SA 208 (CC)
41. Occupiers of Saratoga Avenue v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality and Another 2012 (9) BCLR 951 (CC).
42. Occupiers of Skurweplaas v PPC Aggregate Queries 2012 (4) BCLR 382 (CC) (hereinafter Skurweplaas).
43. Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2012 (4) BCLR 388 (CC).
44. Residents of Joe Slovo Community, Western Cape v Thubelisha Homes and Others 2010 (3) SA 545 (CC).
45. Schubart Park Residents’ Association v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality 2012 (1) BCLR 68 (CC).
46. The Government of the Republic of South Africa and Others v Grootboom and Others 2001 (1) SA 46 (CC).
47. Thubagale v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 2022 (8) BCLR 985 (CC).
Copyright (c) 2026 IJRDO - Journal of Social Science and Humanities Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author(s) and co-author(s) jointly and severally represent and warrant that the Article is original with the author(s) and does not infringe any copyright or violate any other right of any third parties, and that the Article has not been published elsewhere. Author(s) agree to the terms that the IJRDO Journal will have the full right to remove the published article on any misconduct found in the published article.
