Minister of Public Works and Others v Kyalami Ridge Environmental Association and Others (Mukhwevho Intervening) Country/Territory South Africa Type of court National - higher court Date May 29, 2001 Source UNEP, InforMEA Court name Constitutional Court Judge Ackermann, Goldstone, Kriegler , Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Sachs, Yacoob, Madlanga and Somyalo concur in the judgment of Chaskalson. Reference number [2001] ZACC 19 Language English Subject Land & soil, Mineral resources Keyword Disasters Constitutional law Land tenure Foreign land tenure Abstract Towards the end of the summer of 2000 there were heavy rains in parts of South Africa that led to the flooding of rivers and extensive damage to homes and property. The President appointed a cabinet committee to deal with this and to make arrangements for the relief of communities affected by the flooding. One of the decisions taken by the committee was to establish a transit camp on the Leeuwkop prison farm to accommodate flood-victims in Alexandra Township. The respondent, representing residents in the vicinity of Leeuwkop, challenged this decision, alleging that the camp would adversely affect their property values and environment. They contended that the committees actions were invalid because there was no authorising legislation; that their rights under township, environment and other land legislation had been infringed; and that they had not been consulted before the decision was taken. The Witwatersrand High Court set aside the decision, directing government to reconsider it after consulting the residents and considering the environmental impact of the camp and the laws applicable. The government appealed and in a judgment written by Justice Chaskalson on behalf of a unanimous Court the appeal was upheld. Government, as owner of the Leeuwkop land, has the same rights as other land owners; if it complies with legislation that is binding on it and acts within the framework of the Constitution it acts lawfully. The decision to establish the camp did not infringe the rights of residents under environmental, land and township legislation. Such consents as may be necessary could be obtained afterwards at the stage of implementing the decision. The committee had acted procedurally fairly taking into account various factors, including the nature of the decision, the rights affected by it, the circumstances in which it was made, and the consequences attaching to it. The Alexandra flood victims had a constitutional right to be given access to housing. Their concerns, the concerns of other homeless people looking for land on which to settle and all landowners who might be affected by choices that were made had to be considered. However, there had been a need for a decision to be taken quickly in order to address the plight of the flood victims who were living in deplorable conditions. The Court affirmed the decision in the Grootboom case: within its available resources government has a constitutional duty to provide relief to the homeless and those in crisis because of natural disasters. Providing such relief is an essential role of government in a democratic state. In the present case, the funds had been made available for this purpose and government would fail in its duty to the victims of the floods in Alexandra Township if it did nothing. Full text COU-158479.pdf