Judicial enforcement of the right to adequate housing against local government through the lens of General Comment 4 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A South African perspective

African Human Rights Law Journal 25 (1):358-403 (2025)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Based on a critical analysis of relevant case law and desk-based comprehensive legal research, this article examines the judicial enforcement of the right to adequate housing against local government in South Africa. The article focuses on how courts hold local government accountable in fulfilling the right measured against the baseline factors outlined in General Comment 4 of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The factors that determine whether a certain form of shelter amounts to ‘adequate housing’ encompass seven integral components: security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy. General Comment 4 specifically expounds on the right to adequate housing as enshrined in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. South Africa is a state party to ICESCR. Domestically, the right to access adequate housing, as guaranteed by section 26(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, imposes a legally binding duty on the state. These duties are varyingly shared by the three spheres of government: the national, provincial, and local governments. However, Schedule 4A of the Constitution allocates the functional area of housing as a ‘concurrent competency’ of the national and provincial governments. Subject to the prerequisite for competently administering national housing programmes, local government may ultimately be assigned to fulfil housing functions and powers by the national and provincial governments. Nonetheless, with an overstretched fiscus, municipalities are hesitant to assume housing delivery roles. Key findings reveal that numerous court cases bind municipalities by assigning to them increased rights-based responsibilities that they may not be adequately equipped or empowered to implement. Thus, despite courts not explicitly referencing General Comment 4, judicial enforcement of the right is consistent with the baseline factors.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Right to Housing: Forced Sales Threatening the Security of Tenure in China and South Africa.Soraya Beukes - 2025 - In Soraya Beukes, Marzieh Asaadi, Pfano Mashau, Marina G. Shilina & Nazreen Shaik-Peremanov, Sustainable Social Housing Development in BRICS+ Countries: Challenges and Opportunities. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. pp. 207-248.
Economic Implications for Sustainable Housing: Advancing Technology and SDG 11 in South Africa.Pfano Mashau & Sifiso R. Gwala - 2025 - In Soraya Beukes, Marzieh Asaadi, Pfano Mashau, Marina G. Shilina & Nazreen Shaik-Peremanov, Sustainable Social Housing Development in BRICS+ Countries: Challenges and Opportunities. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore. pp. 249-293.

Analytics

Added to PP
2025-12-30

Downloads
205 (#196,477)

6 months
170 (#76,093)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Paul Mudau
University of South Africa

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references