City of Cape Town leaves Bromwell Street residents in limbo after landmark ConCourt ruling

Despite the Constitutional Court’s directive requiring the city to develop a reasonable Temporary Emergency Accommodation Policy within six months, provide housing near the applicants’ current location, and prevent eviction until suitable housing is arranged, the city has yet to specify relocation options or addresses for the Bromwell Street residents.

This leaves the displaced people uncertain about their future, even as the judgment emphasises the need for immediate and equitable solutions.

“The City reiterates that it is not financially feasible for any municipality in South Africa to provide alternative accommodation for private evictions in the location of the evictees’ choice. This would be financially ruinous for every municipality and would absorb the entire State housing budget allocations, stopping all other spending on public housing. The Court has recognised this impossibility,” the City of Cape Town said.

The Constitutional Court judgment ruling in favour of the Bromwell Street community is a landmark victory for housing rights activists and marginalised communities.

The case, brought forward by Ndifuna Ukwazi, with Abahlali baseMjondolo participating as amicus curiae (friend of the court) and represented by the Socio-Economic Rights Institute of South Africa, reinforces the right of vulnerable groups to remain in well-located urban areas.

In the historic ruling dated 20 December 2024, the Constitutional Court upheld the appeal and declared the City of Cape Town’s implementation of its emergency housing programme unconstitutional. The court directed the city to provide accommodation in the inner city as close to their current homes as possible.

The Constitutional Court judgment ruling in favour of the Bromwell Street community is a landmark victory for housing rights activists and marginalised communities. (Photo: Takudzwa Pongweni)

The court found that the City of Cape Town unreasonably failed to implement a Temporary Emergency Accommodation Policy aligned with the National Emergency Housing Programme and acted unconstitutionally by refusing to consider inner-city accommodation for evictees based on a blanket policy. It criticised the city’s inconsistent treatment of evicted persons, providing transitional housing to unlawful occupants while denying it to former lawful occupants like the Bromwell Street residents. 

The judgment highlighted the city’s neglect in addressing spatial injustices rooted in apartheid, particularly the displacement of marginalised residents in gentrified areas like Woodstock and Salt River, and its failure to recognise Woodstock’s historical resistance to forced removals. The Constitutional Court ordered the city to develop a reasonable Temporary Emergency Accommodation Policy within six months, provide temporary or transitional housing near the applicants’ current homes, and prohibit eviction until suitable housing is secured.

The court ordered the city to pay the legal costs incurred by the Bromwell Street applicants in the high court, Supreme Court of Appeal and Constitutional Court.

In response to the court judgment, the city told Daily Maverick that:

“In 2017, the high court granted an eviction order to a private owner of a Bromwell Street property. The occupants had demanded that the state (in this case, the city) provide temporary emergency housing in the specific areas of Salt River, Woodstock, or the CBD, rejecting all offers of temporary emergency housing made by the City of Cape Town at the time. This demand implies that the state would have to provide emergency housing for any number of private evictions in the specific area of the eviction, and at the public’s cost. This is neither reasonable nor feasible, and the ConCourt has now confirmed this. We welcome this aspect of the judgment. The city accepts the Court’s guidance concerning the need for a policy (over and above the Housing Act and Code) regarding offers of temporary emergency accommodation. Following the ConCourt judgment, the city will proceed to determine the number of occupants remaining at Bromwell Street, including their socio-economic conditions, before further engagements on alternative emergency accommodation taking into account the currently available options.”

The Bromwell Street residents initially appealed against the City of Cape Town’s 2016 decision to evict them from their Woodstock homes, proposing to relocate them to the outskirts of the city. The eviction followed the 2013 purchase of their land by the Woodstock Hub for about R3-million. The Constitutional Court heard the case in February 2024 and had reserved judgment at that time.

During the initial eviction, the city offered emergency accommodations in under-resourced and distant areas such as Blikkiesdorp, Wolwerivier (25km from Cape Town), Mfuleni and Kampies, sparking criticism from human rights organizations and housing activists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWe3iNuw0dU

 

Disha Govender, head of the Ndifuna Ukwazi Law Centre and lead attorney in the Bromwell matter, told Daily Maverick that the Constitutional Court judgment underscores the right of marginalised communities to remain well located, particularly in economic hubs.

“Locality is significant not only in easing the vulnerability of people facing eviction into homelessness, but also in respecting fundamental rights like family life, education and access to employment opportunities,” Govender said.

She said that while the judgment addresses Cape Town’s failings, it also sets a precedent for municipalities nationwide to ensure their emergency housing policies are constitutional and that they prioritise well-located, accessible options.

Govender stressed that relocation should be a last resort, since displacing people to poorly located, underserviced areas entrenches inequality.

Instead, “creative thinking and proactive planning” should focus on improving conditions where people currently live or, if relocation is unavoidable, ensuring it does not push residents into poverty traps. This approach is essential to providing a sustainable and equitable response to emergency housing needs.”

In a post shared on Ndifuna Ukwazi’s Facebook page, Charnell Commando, lead applicant in the matter and a Bromwell Street resident, said: “I can now stand proud and say I am from Bromwell. This is my heritage and home. The recent court judgment just set a precedent for each and everyone being evicted from their homes in the inner city and being thrown on the outskirts. We really appreciate everyone who has supported us to this day.”

https://www.facebook.com/NdifunaUkwazi/videos/458248940487674/?vh=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&rdid=WvtLlMO1otwJzOYu

According to the court papers, Bromwell Street is home to 15 people and their dependants with the units and leases to the units handed down from one generation to the next.

A victory for the marginalised

Mqapheli Bonono, deputy president of the shack dwellers’ movement Abahlali baseMjondolo, told Daily Maverick:

“This is a big victory for us as Abahlali, as a movement that represents many facing the challenge of being removed from well-located land within the inner city. This judgment gives us the opportunity to assert the right of marginalised groups to live near the city, closer to their places of work. Municipalities often use alternative housing to justify evictions, but these alternatives perpetuate apartheid-era spatial planning by relocating people far from economic opportunities. This ruling sets a critical precedent for other cases across the country.”

Bonono highlighted the broader implications of the judgment, including its potential influence on cases in KwaZulu-Natal, such as the Shakaville community in Ballito, where residents face displacement to areas 16-20km away.

“We will use this judgment as a reference for ongoing cases. The Constitutional Court has emphasised that people have a right to live near economic hubs. Why should this not apply universally? For communities already displaced, we plan to engage with them about their rights and the significance of this ruling to inform their decisions moving forward.”

A broader fight for spatial justice

In a media statement, chairperson of the parliamentary human settlements committee Nocks Seabi said, “The judgment is important for two aspects – the fact that it entrenches the right to transitional housing on one hand and the importance of spatial justice on the other. The committee has always emphasised the importance of housing opportunities that are closer to economic centres to transform the spatial apartheid that marginalised mainly the poor to areas far away from city centres compelling them to spend inordinate amounts of their earnings on transport.”

Seabi also highlighted that this judgment set an important legal framework to safeguard rights and dignity. Emphasising that the fight for equitable development was far from over, Seabi noted with concern the report by the South African Human Rights Commission after an investigation into incomplete and inadequate reconstruction and development in North West. 

Read more: SAHRC finds North West Human Settlements fails to meet housing mandate, dodges accountability

Seabi said the SAHRC findings highlighted systemic issues affecting housing project delivery in the province.

The committee had urged provincial governments to ensure the standardisation of housing opportunities, a high level of monitoring and assessment of the quality of workmanship, and effective planning and oversight of projects to ensure good quality delivery. DM