Molusi and Others v Voges N.O. and Others (CCT96/15) [2016] ZACC 6 (1 March 2016)

Update re yesterday’s Constitutional Court judgment: ” The constitutional imperatives in section 26(3), given effect to by ESTA, must be borne in mind. That sub-provision demonstrates special constitutional regard for a person’s place of abode. As this Court said in PE Municipality, the sub-provision— ‘acknowledges that a home is more than just a shelter from the elements. It is a zone of personal intimacy and family security. Often, it will be the only relatively secure space of privacy and tranquillity in what (for poor people, in particular) is a turbulent and hostile world.'[66].. The eviction of the applicants without compliance with ESTA will not only render the applicants homeless but will also frustrate their security of tenure and the aims of ESTA. The Supreme Court of Appeal should not have dismissed the appeal. It erred in doing so. The appeal must be upheld.”