- Full bench distinguishes temporary homeless shelters from homes protected by eviction law.
- Judgment defines when emergency shelter falls outside the PIE Act’s protection.
- Court rejects claims that government funding transfers the State’s housing obligations to a private shelter.
People staying in temporary homeless shelters are not protected by South Africa’s eviction law in the same way as people living in a home, the High Court in the Western Cape has clarified.
A full bench comprising Judge A Le Grange, Judge D Holderness and Judge N Ralarala heard the matter, with Judge Holderness writing the judgment and the other judges concurring.
The case was brought by 70-year-old Sheree Foggitt, who challenged her removal from The Haven Night Shelter’s Malmesbury facility after arguing that the facility had become her home and that she could not legally be removed without a court order under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act.
A dispute over temporary shelter
Foggitt had lived within The Haven’s shelter system since 2020 before being admitted to its Malmesbury shelter in April 2024. Like all residents, she signed the organisation’s admissions policy, which provides for a six-month placement, a review after three months and a maximum stay of nine months.
The Haven told the court its shelters operate as transitional facilities rather than permanent housing. Residents are supported through social work programmes aimed at helping them reunite with family, secure employment or move into longer-term accommodation, while limited shelter beds are continually rotated to accommodate other people experiencing homelessness.
The organisation later terminated Foggitt’s accommodation, citing repeated non-payment of shelter fees despite her SASSA pension, breaches of shelter rules and a refusal to participate in social work interventions.
On 23 January 2025, she was transported to Cape Town after declining alternative accommodation offered by The Haven. She was not admitted to the alternative shelters and spent about two weeks sleeping on the streets, where she was robbed and assaulted before obtaining temporary accommodation elsewhere.
What makes a place a home
The central issue before the court was whether a temporary homeless shelter can legally become a home under the PIE Act.
Judge Holderness said the ordinary meaning of a home requires more than simply occupying a building. “The ordinary meaning connotes a place of regular occupation coupled with some degree of permanence,” Judge Holderness wrote.
The judgment explains that permanence, stability and security of tenure distinguish a home from emergency accommodation. Living in a shelter for several months, the court held, does not by itself transform temporary accommodation into a legally protected home.
Judge Holderness added, “Temporary shelter provided for a defined social welfare purpose does not become a home merely through the passage of time.”
Emergency accommodation serves a different purpose
The court accepted The Haven’s evidence that its shelters exist to provide immediate relief to homeless adults rather than indefinite residential housing.
The judges found that the admissions policy, fixed placement periods and continual turnover of beds demonstrate a welfare model designed to maximise access to scarce emergency accommodation. The policy therefore created no enforceable right to remain indefinitely.
That distinction meant ending Foggitt’s stay did not amount to an eviction requiring judicial authorisation under the PIE Act.
Older Persons Act argument rejected
Foggitt also argued that The Haven should be regarded as a residential facility regulated under the Older Persons Act because of her age and the nature of the accommodation.
The full bench rejected that argument, finding that The Haven’s shelters are neither old-age homes nor residential care facilities contemplated by the Act. They remain temporary homeless shelters providing emergency accommodation and social support.
Government funding does not shift constitutional duties
Another important question was whether The Haven assumes the State’s constitutional housing obligations because it receives funding from the Western Cape Department of Social Development and grant-in-aid funding from the City of Cape Town.
Judge Holderness held that public funding does not transform a private non-profit organisation into the State. “The Constitution does not impose upon the Haven the positive obligations resting on the State to provide housing,” Judge Holderness wrote.
The court found that while The Haven must respect constitutional rights in the way it operates, receiving public funding does not convert it into the State or transfer the government’s duty to provide housing.
Police removal policy upheld
Foggitt further challenged The Haven’s policy allowing police or security personnel to assist in removing residents whose accommodation has been lawfully terminated.
The judges dismissed that challenge, finding that the policy itself did not establish an unlawful eviction procedure and there was no legal basis for declaring it invalid.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
